CHAPTER I.

THe nature of power, right, com­mand, obedience, function, law, judgement, are so twisted together and linked, that it is not possible to treat of one alone: for as the perfection of power is command, so power is exercised with lawes by those that have right to it and a function in the state: obedience is a yielding to power, command, lawes, counsells and advices.

The word Potestas, power, denotes three things; Person, Right and Office. Often it is taken for the person or persons that are the so­veraign Magistrate: it is also opposite to jus or right; thus Tacitus, in the third Book of his annals, saith that right is weakned when power comes in. In a large sense it is defined, A faculty to bring any thing to passe, either by right or by wrong: or thus; A faculty in the agent to move it self towards the patient either necessarily, or at the will of the agent: necessa­rily in a naturall body, but arbitrarily in an intelligence either Divine, or Angelicall and humane.

Authority as it hath relation to man, is a fa­culty [Page 3] in the agent, to move it self at the will of the patient: for power is exercised over men a­gainst their will; but authority is over those that willingly yield, and are perswaded and convinced: yet sometimes power and authority are promiscuously used. But philosophers, huma­nists, and statists usually ascribe authority to men, and writings, that put no coercion or force to mens actions: thus they attribute great authority to the placita and responsa of wise and prudent men, whose judgements, dictates and definitions who ever giveth no credit [...], is taxed of foolishnesse not of rebellion or disobe­dience: and so to men, commendable for their age, wisedome, prudence and experience; as the Heathens did to their Plato, Socrates, Aristote­les, Zeno, Princes of Schools, who captivated the minds, not the bodies, of their hearers. 'Tis in that sense Cicero, in his first Book of Offices, in the very beginning, speaks of the great autho­rity that Cratippus and Athens had, though neither of them had power either of legislation or of jurisdiction: and in his Epistles, he often mentioneth those that were in great favour and authority with Caesar and Pompey, although they had no power of jurisdiction over them. Albeit Grammarians should put no difference betwixt power & authority; yet nature, custome, and the practise of all nations, yea the holy Scripture distinguisheth power of jurisdiction and command, which imposeth penalties upon [Page 4] the transgressours, from that authority which enforceth not the outward man, but only work­eth upon the soul, perswadeth and begetteth be­lief, respect and reverence. Power of jurisdicti­on is alwayes attended with command, and followed with obedience, either active or pas­sive, to the command of the power: but autho­rity, being for the most part attended with some of these, old age, gravity, wisedome, prudence, ex­perience, strength of reason, eloquence, by its exhortations, dehortations, counsells, produceth in those that are wrought upon and perswaded, the effect of obedience, not with constraint, but freely and voluntarily; not for fear of punish­ment to be inflicted by men in case of non-obe­dience, but either (may be) for fear of offending God, or because strength of reason maketh one yield to a truth; or one yields to authority to avo [...]d an evill, or purchase some good. Briefly, the holy Scripture, reason, mans wisedome and reach, nature and custome, yea all tongues of men, can utter or imagine but two wayes by which a man is drawn to yield obedience, or put upon that duty to obey and yield: either be­cause the command of a power puts a force or penalty on the outward man; or because the au­thority of counsell, advice and exhortation hath so convinced the inward man, and perswaded him, that it must needs move the outward to yield an obey. Plautus in Bacchides act. 4. sc. 7. could say, ego neque te jubeo, neque veto, neque sua­deo; [Page 5] I neither bid thee, nor forbid thee, nor yet perswade thee.

Sure the holy Scripture maketh use but of these two wayes to draw obedience from a man, 2. Thessal. 3. v. 12. We command, and exhort you. Curtius lib. 5. speaking of the souldiers of Darius, who were rather drawn by command then that they approved his counsell, saith, Regis imperium magis quam consilium sequeban­tur: and Livy in his 29. book, nec imperium illud meum, sed consilium; this is not my command, but advice. So in all states, councels & assemblies, civill or religious, men bring their designes to an end, either by advising and coun­selling, or making lawes and constitutions in order to their commands. Cicero, in his Ora­tion for Rabirius, saith, that the soveraign counsell is seated in the Senate, but the so­veraign command in the Consuls: and Taci­tus, speaking of the Germane and Gallick Kings, saith that they were endowed with a perswasive power, but not with a commanding power: so Curtius lib. 6. of the Kings of Mace­don in capitall matters, the power of the Kings was little worth, except they could by their authority perswade. The like may we say of the power of Synods or church-assemblies, without a power of magistracy, that their canons and de­crees, except men be convinced and perswaded to yield and assent, are of small validity.

The most learned Divines did never put a me­dium [Page 6] between command, and counsell or ad­vice. Thus Rivet upon the decalogue: there is some subjection of the Magistrate to the Ec­clesiasticall colledge, but such as is not a power of jurisdiction as under a command but of di­rection and counsell. And in the same place; We say that the Magistrate doth not depend on any: so that we do not exclude counsell, but comm [...]nd; for it is one thing to make use of couns [...]ll, another to submit himself to com­mand.

So for matter of law (as we shall see some­where else) & which is a product of power, if it doth not put a penalty upon the transgressours of it, it is a mere counsell and advice. So saith Cam­panella real. Philosoph. cap. 4. apoph. 12. Lex nulla potest esse sine poena, ubi non exprimitur, est arbitraria; alioqui consilium erit, non lex. My reverend Father, in an Epistle to Subrandus Lub [...]rt [...]s, and in his book of the temporall mo­narch [...]e of the Pope ch. 8. saith, take away the co [...]ctive power in judges, then their judge­ments are but counsells, since the execution de­pendeth on the will of man.

Under counsell [...]ank entreaty, warning, exhortation, dehortation: counsell perswadeth, command compelleth, and is an act of jurisdi­ction [...] defined by the Lawyers, potestas jus dicendi etiam in nolentem, a power which gi­veth law to the unwilling: whereas the other, if it be jurisdiction (and so may I call it, though [Page 7] it be but a product of the inward jurisdiction) it is over those that from unwilling are made willing; such is the jurisdiction of the power of the keyes by the preaching of the Gospell. As I know no medium betwixt these; so I do not con­ceive that a jurisdiction presbyteriall, classicall, synodicall, or even congregationall, can ever have any workings that run in a middle chan­nell, and are neither acts of magistracy, nor of counsell and advice: but a consistory or synod must needs exercise either one of these two jurisd [...]ctions singly, or both jointly. For example, a synod of Dordrecht dispensing both jurisdictions, the one from Christ, the other from the magistrate, may by the one convince some remonstrant ministers of the truth of the five points handled; but by the other jurisdiction they will remove the obstinate remonstrants from their flock. Thus a synode of Arians, if au­thorised by the magistrate, may compell the or­thodox Bishops to relinquish their sees, but never perswade them to change their opi­nions.

But the Ecclesiasticall history affordeth us a notable example, proving the nullity of Eccle­siasticall and Presbyteriall power, which is nei­ther advice, counsell, nor the inward jurisdicti­on by which the inward man is perswaded and convinced, nor a power of magistracy compel­ling the outward man to obedience. Paulus Sa­mosatenus, being by a Synod of Antioch excom­municated, [Page 8] and deposed from his see, and one Domnus voted to be in his place; Paulus slighting the synods judgement, and the synod being not invested with any power to execute their sentence against Paulus Samosatenus had recourse to their Emperour Aurelianus a hea­then, who not onely judged in the behalf of the synod of Antioch, but actually outed Pau­lus, and put Domnus in his place. This history we have in the seventh book of Eusebius ch. 39. I aske here, what was the sentence of the synod against Paulus Samosatenus, but advice and counsell, and a declaration of their mind, that Paulus deserved to be excommunicated, and put out of his place, and Domnus to take his place? and indeed that sentence of excommunication and deposition signified just nothing, untill power of execution went along with it.

All this is sufficient to evince that all juris­diction Papall, Episcopall and Presbyteriall, is a name without a thing, if it be not coercive; else that it is merely a counsell and admoni­tion, by which if a man be not perswaded to obey, the transgressour cannot incurre any pe­nalty, and thereby be deprived of life, liberty and goods: so that all censure, as excommuni­cation, which is not a product of magistracy and a coercive jurisdiction, falls to the ground, and is like the bulls of the Pope, which hurt none but those that are afraid of them. For the act of excommunication must be a product of a [Page 9] commanding jurisdiction, or of counsell and advice; we having clearly seen that there is no medium betwixt these two. If it be an effect of coercive jurisdiction, then it must be a product of magistracy delegated by the soveraign power without, or exercised within the assem­bly of those that do excommunicate. Either way excommunication finds no footing, since it is not a mere advice, nor, as they will have it, a mere product of coercive power; which the very Papists, at least those that newly came from a­mongst them, namely Antonius de Dominis, con­ceived to be necessarily joyned with all Ecclesia­sticall sentences; else that they were mere decla­rations of the mind. These be his words lib. 5. de rep. ca. 1. Nos potius Episcopi & Min stri decla­ramus esse excludendum, quam actu corporali excludimus; we Bishops and Ministers do ra­ther declare that one is deserving to be exclu­ded, then we exclude him bodily; one being an act of command, the other of advice. Thus in the 2. chapter he saith, that no church can excom­municate without magistracy: Nihil sine pote­state laica obtinebimus; neminem Ecclesiasti­ca potestate possumus extrudere, abripere, ex­pellere.

These two jurisdictions, the one of advice and counsell, the other of magistracy, neither of them being like the presbyteriall jurisdiction challenged, may be instanced in all kinds of societies, families, meetings, religious or civill; [Page 10] whereas our presbyterian brethren cannot so much as produce one single act exercised in a consistory or synod which is not an effect of magistracy, or of counsell and advice, and is not either compelling the outward man, or per­swading the inward. Thus a father of a fami­ly, to bring his son to walk in the wayes of God, must go about it either by perswasion, or by compulsion, hale him perforce to church, hoping that God may there work upon his heart. Thus a private church, by the jurisdiction of the keyes and power of perswasion, may win a bro­ther; but by the other jurisdiction will expell him, and put him out of the congregation.

One thing very considerable, and which over­throweth all jurisdiction which steps between the jurisd [...]ct [...]on of magistracy and that of the word, which in foro externo, in the court of man, is counsell and adv ce but in f [...]ro interno, in the cou [...]t of conscience, is command, strict injunction with threatning; that thing consi­derable, I say, is, that it is of the nature of the division of power exercised in all societies, as of most of the things delivered either in nature, philosophy, or Scripture, that naturally it brancheth into two; by which dichotomy most tru [...]hs a [...]e discovered. Thus naturall philosophy divide [...]h [...]ance into first and second; the whole world into heaven and earth; sensitive creatures into man and beast, rationall and irra­ [...]nall: thus the Scripture divides Angels into [Page 11] good and bad; men into elect and reprobates; the Testament into new and old; the people of God into Iewes and gentiles; the whole man into flesh and spirit, new man and old; things enjoyed into spirituall and temporall; Gods Kingdome into earthly and heavenly. And thus, to come to our purpose, there be two powers, one internall, the other externall; two swords, the sword of the word or spirit in the ministery, and the sword of magistracy; two courts, one outward, called forum externum, governing the outward man, and imposing lawes on him; the other forum internum, governing the con­science, perswading and convincing it. So for judgement and obedience; judgement is either a commanding, or counselling, advising, and may be called judgement of approbation: obedience is either to commands or counsells. He were here a cunning Oed [...]pus, who could find room for Ecclesiasticall court, judgement and law, or find a medium at least of participation betwixt those two jurisdictions, the one coercive or of magistracy, the other perswasive and exercised by perswasion; such is that which is exercised in the word, to which (as St. Peter speaketh) man yieldeth not by constraint, but willingly and with a ready mind.

Even all actions where art, mans wisedome, industrie, nature, and Gods blessing and grace do concur, do evidently shew the necessity of this dichotomy, and the nullity of what is ima­gined [Page 12] to be interposed betwixt the power of magistracy and the power of ministery, betwixt the power of compulsion and the power of per­swasion. For example, the acts of magistracy are like the acts of a plough-man, who hath a com­mand over his ground to plough it, dung it, then harrow it, and scatter his seed: but the acts of ministery, or rather the acts of God in the mi­nistery, by working upon the heart, convincing, and making the man to follow willingly Gods call, are like the other acts, which are not so much in the power of the plough-man; as in Gods sending the rain upon his ploughed and sown land, blessing or frustrating all his past la­bours.

This being the nature of power, next is to be considered how it is divided, and how powers are subordinate or coordinate. I could never conceive that power can be branched but into two, viz. externall and internall. The inter­nall power is either divine, or of art: the divine power is either naturall, or of the word; which is either ordinary, or extraordinary. Ordinary is upon these that are either convinced, or hardned: the extraordinary is either of prophecy, or of miracles: that of prophecy is either under the old, or the new Testament.

The externall power is either private, or pub­lick. Private power is that freedome in every private man or society to act things and in things, wherein the publick is little or nothing [Page 13] concerned, and no way disturbed: which power doth much belong to private churches, as we shall see in another place.

The publick externall power is either so­veraign, or subordinate and delegated. The soveraign is either of legislation, or of jurisdi­ction. The subordinate is a power delegated by the soveraign to cities, provinces, families, so­cieties of whatsoever kind, as churches, schools, colledges, halls, universities, corporations: so that there is no externall power commanding obedience under some penalty, making lawes, and compelling the outward man, wherewith masters, husbands, fathers, halls, corporations, societies, churches are invested, but is derived from the soveraign externall power, which we call power of magistracy. Here is no more room for ecclesiasticall power then for maritall, pater­nall, despoticall, as neither for medicall if you will, and so for pharmaceuticall, military, ru­rall, and the like; all which are a like subordi­nate to the soveraign externall power, called the power of magistracy: for I do conceive that church-power or jurisdiction are as improperly called ecclesiasticall, as if the jurisdiction where­with a colledge of physitians might be invested were called medicall or physicall; since a mini­ster, a physitian, a merchant, as such, are not in­vested with jurisdiction: which cannot be said of a justice of peace, of a constable, or of a ser­geant, who as such are invested with a power [Page 14] and jurisdiction: and sure the power of a ser­geant might lesse improperly be called sergean­tall, then that of a church-man, ecclesiasti­call.

The coordinate powers, when neither of them is subordinate to the other, are the power of the word in the ministery, and the power of ma­gistracy: the one being Gods spirits jurisdicti­on over the hearts and aff [...]ct [...]ons of men; the other the magistrates jurisdiction compelling men to an outward act of obedience: which powers I have shewed that nothing could step between, as medium either of participation or of negation; although our presbyterian brethren tell us, that the ecclesiasticall is also coordinate, if not to the power of the word, at least to the power of the magistrate: a power (they say) which is distinct both from the power of the word, and from the power of the magistrate. But this having already been disproved by rea­son, I will alledge but one of their own, namely Triglandius de potestate ecclesiastica against Vedelius, as good as confessing he cannot tell what to make of that ecclesiasticall power, and where it must be placed: for in the description he makes of the power of the magistrate about sacred things, and that of the power of the word, which yet he calls ecclesiasticall, he leaves no room for a presbyterian ecclesiasticall power of excommunicating, deposing, and making lawes authoritatively, as they speak. Though, I say, [Page 15] he calls that power ecclesiasticall, yet it hath but merely the name of it; for he giveth such a de­scription to it, as I could give no other to the power of the word. These be his words, in the prefa [...] to the reader: The ecclesiasticall power is the spirituall power seated in the administra­tion of the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, striking at the soul, and intrinsecally affecting the consciences of men; which God maketh use of as an inst [...]ument and a mean for their con­version and salvation; and for that cause is so much nobler then the civill, as the soul is no­bler then the body, and eternall felicity and salvation is more excellent then temporall prosperity. But this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate. There is nothing in this description that belongeth to the ec­clesiasticall presbyterian power, such as M^r. Gil­lespie would give us: for excommunication doth not strike at the soul, but at the body; and the opposition he maketh of the things he likens it to, do shew he speaketh of such a power as is called the power of the resurrection, Philip. 3. v. 10. and the power of God, Rom. 1. v. 16. and by which we are the sons of God, Ioh. 1. v. 12. which properties cannot belong to the power of excommunication, and of making lawes in a synod, which being carried by the major part of votes, though it were but of one, oblige all men to obedience. Yet my [...]everend [...]nd M^r. Caesar Calandrin conceiveth, that Triglandius [Page 16] by the keyes understood both keyes, of the word, and of discipline. To that I say, 1. that Triglandius description of ecclesiasticall power reacheth only to the soul, and not to the or­dering the outward man by discipline: 2. that a key is an admission to the Kingdom of grace, and not to a visible assembly: 3. a key is an instrument to get in those that are without, if they please to come in willingly; not to force them in, or to keep them from entering; nor to cast out those that are within by excommunica­tion, except they desire to go out of themselves. They use to expell men with staves and [...]udgels, but not with a key, except it be taken by the wrong end, and to a wrong use. What Triglan­dius saith, that this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate, is true of the power of the word in converting from darknesse to light; which indeed none of the divines ascribe to the magistrate. But if he had spoken of a power of presbyterian ecclesiasticall judicato­ries, it had not been true what he saith, that none of the divines attribute it to the magistrate; for it is the opinion of Bullingerus, Musculus, Gual­terus, great and famous divines, who take off from the ministers all such presbyteriall power, and give it to the true owner, even to the Chri­stian magistrates.

Now let us see how farre he extendeth the power of the magistrate in sacred things; by which it is plain he affords no room for pres­byterian [Page 17] power to interpose between the power whereof we have just now seen the description, and the power of the magistrate. These be his words ch. 16. p. 317. It belongeth to the civil power to deliberate what religion he will have to be exercised among his subjects: if he doth remove the true religion, he abuseth indeed his power, yet for all that his power must not be denied. I would fain know by what power the magistrate doth these things: Is it an eccle­siasticall, or civil? If civil, then some acts of the ecclesiasticall power are subordinate to the civil: if ecclesiasticall, I ask whether it is coor­dinate to that of the ministers power, or subor­dinate to the civil power. If subordinate, 'tis all I say. If coordinate, then it is ten times more absurd to fain two equall powers and judicato­ries over the same persons, and in the same cause and matter, as we shall see in another place.

To clear all mistakes about subordination of powers:

1. When we say that ecclesiasticall power is subordinate to the power of the magistrate, we do not understand a subordination of functions; for neither the functions of physitians, mer­chants, professours of arts, no more then that of ministers, are subordinate to magistracy; but that whatever jurisdiction ministers, physitians, merchants, or professours of arts have, is sub­ordinate to the magistrate. And indeed this [Page 18] hath been one great cause to deny a subordina­tion of ecclesiasticall to civil; because persons, and functions, and the affairs about these fun­ctions, having alwayes been separated, this errour hath soon crept in, that jurisdiction and rule must be also separated: but if jurisdictions have need to be separated and distinct, because functions are so; there would be as many juris­dictions in a state, as there be professours of arts and sciences. And since functions that have no affinity with magistracy make no distinction of jurisdiction; much lesse the sacred function and magistracy, that are so near a kin, have need to have severall jurisdictions. And indeed the affinity is great; both tending to the pro­moting of the soveraign good, and for many 1000. years the same person having been in­vested with them both.

2. It is a great mistake of some, who, because a jurisdiction is from God, and subor­dinate to him, deny it to be subordinate to the magistrate. For is not the maritall or paternall power-subordinate to God, and yet to the ma­gistrate? and is not despoticall power subor­dinate to God, Colos. 4. and yet to the magi­strate?

3. Neither do we say, that all those whose jurisdiction is subordinate to the magistrate, ought to exercise their power by authority from the magistrate only: for they must do it as ser­vants, 1. [...]n all just and lawfull things; 2. not [Page 19] with an eye-submission, (as St. Paul saith of servants) as men-pleasers, but as subject to Christ, and from a principle of conscience, though there were no magistrates at all.

4. This consideration will remove many mi­stakes, that it may well stand that a power, a command, a law, a precept may be both from God & from the magistrate: thus the decalogue is as well a law of the magistrate, as of God. Yea I maintain, that a command or law of God hath no force of law in the court of man, or in any presbytery, synod or assembly whatsoever, bind­ing to active or passive obedience, except it hath the stamp of magistracy, and be published anew by the soveraign magistrate; and that no man can be punished legally for robbing and steal­ing, yea not for killing, much lesse can he be ex­communicated, except there be a law of man a­gainst robbers and murtherers, and that some magistracy impowereth churches or synods to passe a sentence of excommunication.

5. This also hath been a great mistake, which made many deny a subordination of ecclesiasti­call to civil, because those that embrace the true religion, and live under those that hate them or persecute them, endeavour as to have a com­munion independent from the magistrate, so also a jurisdiction.

6. Another errour in making the church ju­risdiction not subordinate, but wholly inde­pendent from the magistrate, is, this assertion [Page 20] easily descending into the minds of those that af­fect rule and jurisdiction, viz. that the end of magistracy is outward peace and quietnesse on­ly, and purchasing all means to the attaining of the preservation of temporall life, wealth and prosperity; having nothing to do with pro­moting the eternall good and happinesse of the soul. But this errour is not only refuted by the very heathens, but also by the most learned or­thodox Divines, both English and others. Pa­reus on the 13. to the Romans dubio 5. saith the end of the magistrate is not only the civil good, but also the spirituall good of the subjects, that religion may flourish in the church according to the word of God: and so Junius Meditat. on the 122. Psalm tom. 1. col. 721. saith, that the magistrate is to procure by divine and humane right the good of the spirituall Kingdom of Christ. But Antonius de Dominis lib. 5. de re­publica ecclesiastica cap. 5. §. 1. is very pro­lix and nervous to prove, that he that is in­vested from God with a power to purchase na­turall felicity, is also invested with a power to promote the spirituall.

7. It is also a great errour, to make a coor­dination of powers seated in the same persons. For, if it could be imagined that one part of the people were the Church, and the other part the Commonwealth, they might be also ima­gined independent one from another: thus a society of merchants, and a colledge of scho­lars, [Page 21] may be well imagined to be corporations so independent one from the other, that none of the society of merchants are part of the col­ledge, and none of the colledge are part of the society. But granting that the same persons are members of the society of merchants and of the colledge of scholars, the command, law, discipline of those two corporations, as long as they admit the same members, must have either a perpetuall conflict and clashing, or the com­mand of one corporation must be subordinate to the command of the other; or else if they be both coordinate, they must also be both equally subordinate to a power set over them both. This is the case between the Church and the Com­monwealth. Granting that the same persons are members of the Commonwealth, and of the Church, it is not possible to make these two juris­dictions coordinate, and yet subsist together in peace, love and amity: and without one disturbs the other, they must joyntly agree to have one power over them; or the law, injunction and commands of one, must be subordinate to the lawes of the other.

8. The grandest inconvenience in this coor­dination of powers and jurisdictions is, that the same persons being members of societies un­der both these powers, and submitting to the commands of both, shall be in continuall per­plexity which to obey, if both do not command one thing. There is such a communion in mens [Page 22] actions, causes, relations, functions, callings, commands, duties, jurisdictions, freedoms, li­berties, among those that live under one sove­raign power, and within the precincts of one jurisdiction, that it is impossible that any out­ward action can be performed in whatever re­lation a man be considered, as husband, master, father, pastor, lawyer, physitian, merchant, at home or in church, in a synod, or in a city, or hall, except they all are modified, ruled and di­rected by one supreme jurisdiction; otherwise the saying of Tacitus would prove true, ubi plu­res imperant, nemo obsequitur, where there be many coordinate powers, there is none found to obey. When a magistrate doth command a subject to attend him in the wars, this command doth exempt him from the commands and in­junctions that may be made to him as he is a son, member of a consistory, or of a synod, or of some other corporation: therefore, when the King of Scotland in the year 1582. commanded the magistrate of Edenburgh to en­tertain and feast a French Ambassadour on a set day, and the presbytery of Edenburgh, to crosse this command, had enjoyned a fast upon the same day, since both commands could not be obeyed at once by the magistrate of Edenburgh, either the magistrates commands must be sub­ordinate to those of the presbytery, or the com­mands of the presbytery must be subordinate to those of the magistrate; or else the different [Page 23] commands of both must be subordinate to a third power, above both presbytery and magi­strate.

I have brought in my Paraenesis a cloud of witnesses, Martyr, Musculus, Gualterus, Iunius, Pareus, Cassander, Hooker, Antonius de Do­minis, proving the necessity, that the power cal­led ecclesiasticall should be subordinate to that of the magistrate. I will only alledge Musculus, in whom we shall see the sense of all the rest; loc. com. de magistratibus. The way and nature of government cannot bear that in the same people there be two authentick powers, two di­verse legislations and dominations, except it be by subordination; as there is no place for two heads upon one body. Learned D^r. Hammond, who is neither for Geneva presbytery, nor of Era­stus opinion, nor yet of Musculus, Bullingerus & Gualterus, who made little account of excom­munication; yet he holds, that ecclesiasticall power is subject to the civil magistrate, who in all causes over all persons is acknowledged supreme under Christ. These be his words, in his tract of the power of the keyes, p. 87. though by them he overthroweth all power in mini­sters and Bishops of excommunicating indepen­dently from the magistrate, which yet he strives to assert against Erastus. M^r. Rutherford and M^r. Gillespie think, that if it were granted that the magistrate is Christs viceregent, it would sub­vert wholly the grounds upon which ecclesiasti­call [Page 24] presbyterian power is built. I question whe­ther this concession of D^r. Hammond that the magistrate is the governour of the Church under Christ, would not equally unsettle his episcopall excommunication.

I should in this chapter, as I intended at first, shew the vanity and nullity of the multitude of divisions and subdivisions of ecclesiasticall power, which, like wooden legs to a lame man, must be more in number, and worse for sub­stance, and unfitter to walk upon, then good legs of flesh and bones to another: for whereas this must have but two, the other must have as good as four, and yet very bad ones. Accord­ing to our principles, these two only things well considered and retained, namely, the power of the word in the ministery, and the externall power of magistracy, will clear and decide the whole controversy, and assert the right of churches, and the power of magistracy in them and over them: whereas all the limbs of the ecclesiasticall power, which are more in number then the pillars of Salisbury church, are not ca­pable to prop up the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction independent from that of the magistrate. But it would be now too long and tedious a task, ha­ving handled that subject very largely in the se­cond chapter of my Paraenesis, and hoping to speak further of the same when I meet with M. Gillespie, who being a great schoolman, hath devised a number of cases and boxes to lodge his ecclesiasticall power in.

CHAPTER II.

RIght, in Latine jus, differs from law, as rule from justice: for law is the rule it self, but right is the justice of the rule. Sometimes it signi­fieth that vertue called in Greek [...] equi­ty, which abates of the rigour of the law. But right in generall that comprehendeth all rights, is that which is due to every one by either equi­ty, that is by the law of nature and of na­tions, or by an instituted law. Sometimes right is so stiled, by those that will call it so, because they have the better sword: thus Ariovistus an­swered Caesar, that right of war was, that the victor should give law to the vanquished. By naturall right we understand that which is consonant to right reason.

Commonly right is divided into private and [Page 26] publick. Private right is the same with perso­nall right; which is had either independently from masters, parents, husbands; those that have it are called sui juris: or dependently upon masters and parents. The publick right is either naturall, as when St. Paul saith that the Gentils do naturally the things of the law; or instituted, and is called positive right, having a positive rule, which is given either by God or by men. God giveth it 1. to certain persons, as to Abra­ham, Isaac, Iacob, Moses, &c. 2. to a certain people, as to Israel: 3. to all men, either for a time, as the law of not eating bloud; or for e­ver, as the Sacraments, and the preaching of the Gospell.

It is not possible to give an exact division of right. Many things that are of naturall right are also of divine and instituted right; so, many di­vine precepts, as is the decalogue, are of humane institution: but custome hath prevailed, that these precepts should be of positive right, that have no footstep in nature, as is the observation of a seventh day, the forbidding of eating the tree of death and life. We say things to be of naturall right, in which we are rather born then brought up, and which are naturally imprinted in us; as is the law defined by Tullius 1. leg. law is a soveraign way imbred in nature, commanding things to be done, and forbidding things contrary. By that law we know many things instituted and delivered in Scripture: as [Page 27] that obedience is due by children to parents, by servants to masters, by wives to husbands; that theft, murder is to be avoided; and, to come nearer to our purpose, that there is one God; that he must be worshipped; that he cannot be worshipped except it be in meetings and assem­blies in one place; that in those assemblies all must be done in order; that the whole assembly, if it be numerous, must be governed by some choice men chosen out of the whole body, and deputed from them; likewise the law of nature and of nations teacheth us, that what is agreed on by the major part of those deputies, must stand for a law; that that law must be obeyed under penalties: albeit if we be ruled by the po­sitive law of God, we are not so much to follow the number of suffrages and votes in carrying of a law, as the soundnesse and goodnesse of the law. This also is a law of nature, practised even by all nations, that soveraign command about sacred things, yea the chief sacerdotall function, belongeth to the soveraign power; of which law a part hath been abrogated by the re­vealed law of the Scripture, which did so sever the sacerdotall function from the regall, that the regall still kept the soveraign jurisdiction about sacred things. This is also a law of nature and nations, that every assembly and convention of men should have power to chuse, admit, and exclude members of their own society, and to perform all acts conducing to their subsistence.

Those rights of nature God by a superiour di­ctate or command in the Scripture hath not ab­rogated; for grace doth not take away, but per­fects nature. So that no member of a society is to recede from its naturall right, liberty, and priviledge, except by a positive law of God or man he is restrained and commanded other­wise.

Those rights of the naturall law being well understood, it will easily be stated, by what right or power, naturall, civil, politicall, (I had almost said ecclesiasticall) despoticall, pa­ternall, maritall, not only every society, family, but also each member acteth: for the greatest mi­stake about ecclesiasticall power is, that many acts of ministers and people are said to be of ec­clesiasticall, ministeriall, divine, positive right, which indeed are acts grounded upon the law of nature and nations, and are derived from a li­berty and common prudence, that every ratio­nall and free man maketh use of in ordering all kinds of societies, fraternities, corporations, whereof he is a member, without needing to flie to a power taking its right and name as if it were of another classis, nature and kind, and independent from any other. For as a man being at once master of a great family, fellow of a colledge of physitians, a citizen, and mem­ber both of the Commonwealth, and of the Par­li [...]ment, besides of a church, is not said to act by so many kinds of rights and powers, as his sta­tions [Page 29] are in the Commonwealth, as if in his col­ledge he acted by a medicall or academicall power, in city or hall by a civicall power, in a church by an ecclesiasticall or church power; all being supposed to be alike coordinate, and not being subordinate to the supreme power: so naturall power, right, liberty, and prudence in ordering all kinds of affairs, societies, and fa­milies, are no otherwise distinct in kind or spe­cies, then a yard that measured cloth differs from that which measured searge: as a yard is alike appliable to silk and thred, and the same hammer will knock in an iron naile and a wooden pin; so the same power and prudence governeth the church and a colledge.

It is also observable, that a man being at once a member of a family, hall, city, Parliament, church, doth not act alwaies according to the quality of his relation, function, and place, pub­lick or private; not acting as a physitian, fa­ther, or husband, but as a judge; and not as a church-member, but as a free member of a socie­ty. Thus a member of a colledge of physitians joyneth in consultation with his brethren in a case of physick, as a physitian; but in making lawes, regulating the practise of physick, and the apothecaries entrenching upon the physi­tians, he doth not act as a physitian, but as a judge, and as a person invested with judiciall power from the state. The same physitian in a Parliament, upon the matter and question of [Page 30] physick and of physitians to be regulated, may speak pertinently of his art as a physitian, but doth not vote & give his consent to the making of a law about physick as a physitian, but as a judge of the land. Likewise, to be sure by what right pastors and people act in the church, the acts and actions of a pastor or church-member are to be considered either as acts of pastors and of church-members, or as they are acts of rulers and members of a society. The act of a pastor as pastor, is to discharge all ministeriall function commanded in the revealed word, and not declared by any dictate of nature. In those acts I see no right of jurisdiction, but over the inward man, when by the power of the word the sinner is brought to the obedience of the crosse of Christ. The acts of church-members, as such, are either in relation to the pastor, or of one member to another. In relation to the pa­stor, the acts are to submit to the minister ruling them, and dispensing unto them the word. They may have that liberty to try his do­ctrine, and to do as they of Beroea, who searched the Scriptures, to know whether it was so as St. Paul preached unto them: this is also an act of every faithfull member of the church, not to assent to any doctrine, because it hath been as­sented unto by the major part of suffrages: but in things that concern order and discipline, to yield to the constitutions agreed on by the major part of the assembly; so that by them the [Page 31] bond of charity and the truth of the doctrine be not violated and perverted. The acts of church-members relating one to another are, to bear one anothers burthens, to forgive and edifie one another, to preferre another before him­self.

The acts of pastors and church-members as they are endowed with a power common to all other societies, are 1. to do all things order­ly; 2. to make a discipline sutable to time and place, since there is not in the Scripture a positive precept concerning the same; 3. to oblige every member to the lawes of the discipline voted by the major part of the members; 4. to admit and expell the members which by the major part are thought fit so to be. Many other acts are per­formed by the same members not as church-members: as to appeal to a superiour tribunall, as magistracy or synod, in case of wrong sustain­ed; for they do not oppose a just defence to wrong by any other right, then a member of any society should do. Thus an assembly of Christians meeting in a church way, being per­secuted or assaulted in their temple by rude and wicked men, doth not oppose a just defence by weapons or otherwise as church-members, but as men invested with naturall power against an unjust violence.

In short, ministers and people have many act [...]ngs within the sphear of Christian duties, which are not proper to them as Christians and [Page 32] members of churches; being like in that to a physitian, who doth not build as a physitian, or to a counsellor of State carrying a letter to a friend, who acts then the part of a letter-bearer: thus a father hath a power over his son by a na­turall paternall right; but he doth instruct him in a Gospell way by a paternall Christian right and duty, grounded upon a positive precept of the Scripture: thus Queen Mary of England established a religion by a naturall right, power and duty annexed to all soveraignty to or­der sacred things with a soveraign authority; but Queen Elizabeth did overthrow the false wor­ship, and did set up Protestant religion, not only by the same right that Queen Mary had, but al­so by a positive right, as principall church-member, as Ezechiah, Iosiah, &c. appointed by God to be heads, and nursing fathers and mo­thers of the churches.

The same things, lawes and constitutions that are of divine right, are also of humane right: and likewise the things that are of humane right, in a good sense may be said to be of divine right. Things are said to be of divine or humane right, either because the matter of right is con­cerning Gods worship or humane policie, or be­cause God or man is the author of them. Thus the lawes of the Iewes, regulating their Com­monwealth, are said both to be of divine and humane right: divine, because God is the au­thour of them; humane, because they order all [Page 33] affairs about mine and thine, right and wrong, and betwixt man and man.

Likewise many things have been instituted with great wisedome by magistrates and coun­cils, which may well be said to be both of divine and humane right: Divine, because they further the purity of worship and power of godlinesse; humane, because they were insti­tuted by men, and may suffer alteration and re­formation.

So things that are every way of divine right, both for the matter and institution, as the eating of the passeover, and the observation of the Sab­bath, may be said to be of humane right, because commanded and enjoyned by humane autho­rity. The very calling of synods, which they say is of divine institution, both for their institu­tion, which is Apostolick, and for the matter that is handled in them, none but a papist did yet de­ny to be the Emperours and magistrates right. Thus fasting, prayer, publick humiliation, though duties to be performed by divine right and pre­cept, are also of humane right, as commanded and ordered by the magistrate in a publick way. Thus it was the good Kings of Iuda's right, and none can blame them for it, to command fasting and prayers.

Lastly, things that are every way of humane right, and made by man, and have for their ob­ject the regulating of humane affairs, as are the lawes concerning conduit-pipes, buildings, fo­rests, [Page 34] chases, &c. may conveniently be said to be of divine right, because by divine right they oblige the conscience.

Hence we may gather, how impossible it is to share betwixt laity and clergy by Divine and humane right, power of legislation and jurisdi­ction, about things, causes and persons; as that pastors and ministers should be over things that are of divine right, and magistrates over those things that are of humane right, without clash­ing of powers, causes and persons; there being such a complication of right, causes and persons, that they cannot be so much as ima­gined a sunder: besides that the preaching of the Gospell and magistracy do comprehend all actions of man, and parts of life, wherein men ought to live godly, justly and soberly.

CHAPTER III.

INtending chiefly to prove the vanity and nul­lity of a power called ecclesiasticall distinct [Page 35] from that of the magistrate, since also no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction can be exerci­sed without a power to make a law, and to com­mand obedience to the law; it will be requisite to know the nature of law; that so making good, that Church-officers are not invested with any power to make lawes, or to command obe­dience to them, all their jurisdiction may be brought to just nothing.

Law sometimes is taken for a dictate of nature, or right reason, and consent of nations: thus they say of Aesop, that though he was free by nature, yet the law of man enslaved him: gene­rally it is defined, the rule of actions and du­ties. This ensuing definition I conceive to be one of the most perfect; Law is a rule of life and of morall actions, made and published by a le­gislatour armed with a judiciall power, com­manding things to be done, and forbidding things that are not to be done, under recom­penses and penalties.

To understand the nature of law, we must consider the matter of law, which is, what­ever can be commanded, whether God or man be the author of it; so that no causes or things can be exempted from being the matter of the law of God, or of man: it is enough that it may be commanded. The very doctrine and matter of faith may be matter of the law; for the He­brew thorah signifieth both law and doctrine: so that there is no doubt but that not only the [Page 36] decalogue, but also all the doctrine of the Gospell is matter of the law. For were there any thing that should not be the matter of the law of man, we had need to have a visible infallible judge on earth, besides the soveraign magistrate, who should determine which thing must be the matter of the law, which not. The very doctrine of the Trinity is made the matter of the Code of Justinian; and Theodosius commanded that all his subjects should embrace the religion that Peter the Apostle, Damasus of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria professed.

2. Next we must consider the form of the law, which giveth force of law, and without which law would be no law, and no obedience were due to it in the court of man. That form is the stamp or sanction of the soveraign power, obliging men to obey upon penalties. Law, saith Campanella, without penalty is no law but counsell. That form is expressed in short in the Digests; Legis virtus, &c. the vertue of the law is to command, to forbid, to permit, to pu­nish. The soveraign power giveth the form of law to any matter that is the subject of a mans dutie or obedience either to God or man: yea it giveth form to the lawes of God, which though they oblige the conscience, whether published or no by the magistrate; yet they are of no force in the court of man, to oblige for fear of punish­ment, and, as the Apostle speaketh, for wrath, except they are commanded by the magistrate. [Page 37] So that it is properly man that giveth name and force to a law; and a man may well say with St. Austin, ep. 66. that Jesus Christ commandeth by the magistrate; hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet & Christus, quia cum bonum jubent, per illos non jubet nisi Christus.

3. We must consider the author of the law, either as he that hath given his counsell, and (it may be) furnished the matter and contrivance of the law, as Tribonianus to Iustinian; or he that hath given sanction and force of law to the matter brought to him, such was only Justinian, and not Tribonianus. Sometimes the same per­son contrives the law and giveth sanction to it; such was Solon and Lycurgus. God, who is the author of his lawes, is not the enforcer of them among the Mahumetans, nor any where else, without a Moses; but with those people whom he doth encline to obedience by a law of the spirit.

4. To the nature of the law it is required, that the legislator be armed with a sword to punish the transgressours of the law; therefore equity, truth and justice are no conditions required to the validity of a law, for it receives force from the will of him who is able to make his will good, were it never so bad.

5. It is required that the legistator should command his own lawes, not anothers, com­manding in his own name, and not in the name [Page 38] of another; and therefore those that are in­vested with judiciall soveraign power, are to give account of their actions only to God.

By what I have said, it is easily conceived what force of law have the judgements, sen­tences, canons, decrees of ecclesiasticall judi­catories, except they receive form and sancti­on from the magistrate; without which they are but counsels, admonitions, and advices.

1. Touching the matter, they may afford it, as Tribonianus to Iustinian: in that sense they may be the authors of a law: but they cannot give form and sanction to it, obliging men un­der penalties in case of disobedience, since they are not invested with coactive power, without which law is no law; except they have that power in subordination to the magistrate; for two coordinate powers cannot give sanction to the same law, except it could be imagined, that the will of one should never crosse the will of the other, which is not con­ceivable.

2. Ministers and church-judicatories are not to command any lawes, much lesse their own lawes, but only deliver the commands of a su­periour, either God or the magistrate. The pa­stor may say with Moses Exod. 18. v. 15. I do make the people know the statutes of God & his lawes; but he cannot lay any penalty upon the breaker of the law, except, as Moses, he be in­vested [Page 39] with magistracy. But were the minister not only to deliver the commands of God, but also lay a command; this he could not do but in the name of God: and therefore the magi­strate hath this priviledge, that although he be a minister of God as well as the minister of the Gospell, yet he may command in his own name the law of God, which the minister of the Gospell may not. It is the opinion of the gravest Divines, that ministers have no power of le­gislation▪ which being granted, it is not possi­ble they should have a power of jurisdiction: for it was never heard that he that hath no power of (or capacity to) legislation, can have any to jurisdiction; for every member of Par­liament is supposed to be capable of exercising jurisdiction, but were he disinabled to have a power of legislation, by that he should loose all capacity to bear any office of jurisdicti­on. Camero is very expresse in his tract de Ecclesia p. 369. where having shewed that there be two things which are the matter of law, 1. faith and good manners, 2. things that per­tain to order and discipline; he addes, in nei­ther kind the church hath power to make lawes: having said a little before that what proceedeth from the church ought rather to be called admonitions and exhortations, then lawes. Musculus is no lesse expresse in his com­mon places p. 6 [...]1. We do confidently assert, that all that power by which authentick lawes [Page 40] are made binding the subjects to obey, whether they be called civil or eccle siasticall, do not be­long to the church, that is, to the multitude of the faithfull and subjects; nor to the church­minister; but properly to the sole magistrate, to whom is given a mere command (merum imperium) over the subjects.

3. This sheweth the invalidity of all canons, decrees and sentences of church-judicatories; which except they be known to be equitable, true and just, are not to be obeyed: since the va­lidity of an ecclesiasticall law is not like that of the magistrates, which be it never so unjust, hath the force of a law: but sure none of our pres­byterian brethren will maintain, that all judge­ments and sentences of church-judicatories are infallible; and therefore it belongeth to every man censured by such a judicatorie, to be well informed of the justice, truth and equity of the censure, before he obeyeth it, yea before it hath the force or name of a censure. For it fares with the sentences of ministers, as with the counsels of physitians, which must convince the party of the necessity of vielding to this or that remedy: their commands must have alwayes some reason annexed, why they must be obeyed: but the law of the magistrate needs none, and permits none to interpret it, but obey it accord­ing to the letter.

Lawes are variously divided: into Divine and humane; ecclesiasticall and civil; morall, cere­moniall [Page 41] and politick. Some call those divine, which are made by God; and those humane, which are made by men: others call them di­vine lawes, which rule the conscience; and those humane laws, which govern the outward man. But none of these divisions are without their defects: for humane lawes govern and oblige the conscience, as the Apostle tells us Ro. 13. and albeit all humane lawes are not divine, yet all divine lawes are so far humane, as the magistrate giveth a sanction to them, and imposeth an obligation in the court of man to obey them.

Likewise the division of lawes into morall, policick and ceremoniall, hath its defects: for I conceive that the morall law is the ground and basis of the ceremoniall and politick, and a rule by which God is to be worshipped, State, cities, families, fathers, husbands, children, ser­vants must be governed. So that the ceremoniall law is but the morall law applied to the use of divine worship; and the politick or civil law is but the morall law applyable to the practise and conversation of life at home and abroad.

The holy Scripture putteth no such distin­ction. 1. God was alike the author of them all.

2. God only and Moses his deputy on earth did give a sanction and stamp of obligation to them all.

3. The matter indeed was diverse; and so are [Page 42] the military lawes distinct from the matrimo­niall and testamentary, and yet are they all comprehended under the civil law, because the civil magistrate giveth force of law to them a­like: upon that account why may not the mo­rall and ceremoniall law be called civil?

4. Because when the Scripture speaketh of the perfection of the law of God, of those that walk in the lawes of God, that the law of Moses was read every Sabbath, that many dayes passed without law; the whole body of the lawes gi­ven by Moses is understood, without any such partition.

5. Because the same persons judged every causes and matter punishable by the law, there being, as Mr. Gillespie faineth, no such thing as a judicatory ecclesiasticall for ecclesiasticall causes & a civil bench where the judges decided civil or politick causes; for so we should need a third bench of judges medling with morall mat­ters and causes. Yet Mr. Gillespie, p. 14. grants that the Jewes had no other civil law but Gods own law; and besides that the Levites judged not only in the businesse of the Lord, but also in the businesse of the King, 1 Chron. 2. v. 30. & 32.

And so falls down the division of lawes into ecclesiasticall and civil; for

1. They differ not in kind, otherwise then a man from an animall; this being the genus, the other the species.

2. All lawes devised by men, whatever sub­ject and matter they are about, are civil, poli­tick, and lawes of that power that giveth them force and vigour of lawes: such are all the con­stitutions about discipline of the church, which in vain they call ecclesiasticall.

3. If a law were to be called ecclesiasticall, because it handleth lawes for the government of the church, we should need as many kinds of lawes as there be societies in the world, and we should have one peculiar classis for lawes to govern schools and Universities, another to go­vern societies of merchants, a third for so­cieties of drapers. I do not deny but that a law may be as properly called ecclesiasticall, as a law is called nauticall, military, testamentary, matrimoniall, either because they are about matters of churches, armies, wills, husbands, wives; or because they were invented for the benefit of churches, souldiers, married people, and the like: but in vain do they think to call a law ecclesiasticall because not only it is of church-matters, but also because it must be made by ecclesiasticall men, and receive form and san­ction from them, and because all causes & mat­ters which they call ecclesiasticall must be jud­ged by ecclesiasticall men. For

1. As ecclesiasticall power (if there be any such thing) must be subordinate to the civil, as we have proved before; so ecclesiasticall lawes to the civil lawes.

2. Ministers having no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction; therefore lawes to govern Christians in churches need not to take their name from church, minister or ministery, but from the magistrate, who is the maker, latour and giver of them, and binds men to a submissi­on to them under penalty.

Musculus, in the above-quoted place, dis­proveth at large this division of lawes into ci­vil and ecclesiasticall, and tells us, how far lawes are to be called ecclesiasticall, though they be in truth the magistrates lawes; only be­cause they are made by him for the good of the church: for as properly, saith he, lawes may be called scholasticall and Academicall, because they were made for the good and benefit of schools or Universities; and so far, and no fur­ther, can it be allowed that lawes should be ec­clesiasticall.

CHAPTER IV.

NOt to run over all the acceptions of judge­ment, which I have handled in my Parae­nesis, I will mention but one, that serveth to de­cide the whole controversie, which lieth in a narrow room, whether the magistrate, or pastors assembled in a presbytery and synod, or even private men be judges of controversies about faith and discipline.

Iudgement is an act, by which every man endowed with reason, or pretending to have any, upon debating within himself, and weigh­ing things to be done or to be believed, at length resolveth peremptorily what either he will do himself, or will have others to do, about things he conceiveth to be true, just and use­full. For to the nature of judgement it is not re­quired, that the thing that a man will do him­self, or will have others to do, be true, just and good; it being enough that he apprehendeth them to be so.

I make two judgements; one private, the o­ther publick. The private I call judgement of discretion, by which every one having weighed and debated within himself the truth, equity, goodnesse or [...]sefulnesse of counsels, advices, commands, doctrine and persons, at length choseth and pitcheth rather upon this then that: [Page 46] this judgement may be called judgement of knowledge and apprehension.

The publick judgement is the delivery of ones private judgement so far as concerneth others, by which a man uttereth what he conceiveth fit­ting for others to do or believe.

This judgement in ministers, presbyteries, synods, wise men, counsellors, physitians and others not invested with any jurisdiction, and who have more authority then power, is called advice, counsell, declaration, when they deli­ver their sense, meaning and opinion upon any debated subject, concluding something which they conceive others are to embrace, believe or practise.

In magistrates and men invested with juris­diction, both this publick judgement and the private have the same operation; as in ministers, synods, counsellors and the like: but over and above it causeth them to command what they conceived fitting to be received and pra­ctised.

By the publick judgement Pastors do what St. Austin saith, Epist. 48. to Vincentius; pa­storis est persuadere ad veritatem persuaden­do; pastors are to bring to truth by persuasion: sed magistratus est cogendo; but magistrates are to bring to it by constraint and by com­manding.

From these publick judgements every private man is to appeal to his private judgement of [Page 47] discretion; not yielding and giving his assent to the declarations, canons, sentences of mini­sters, any further then by his judgement of discre­tion he conceiveth them to be true, just and use­full; not obeying actively the commands of the magistrate, in case he conceiveth them, by the same judgement of discretion, to be against faith and good manners.

The staring thus and dividing of judgement decideth, as I conceive, all the questions and doubts arising about this subject, and answereth all Mr. R [...]therfurds and Gillespies definitions and objections concerning judgement.

They make a fourfold judgement; apprehen­sive, discretive, definitive, and infallible, which belongeth only to Jesus Christ. The definitive, they say, is proper to ministers and church-judi­catories. But they forget the main judgement, which giveth life and force to all the rest, and is the magistrates, when he bringeth to execution things well debated by the judgement of decla­ration, and approved of by the judgement of discretion.

In that division of theirs they also commit two great errors. 1. That they make of one judgement two; for to the judgement of discre­tion they adde a judgement of apprehension, which differs only in degrees from the other; and were these judgements distinct, yet they go alwaies together, and are alwaies in the same person, and do belong to the private judgement. [Page 48] 2. They ascribe a definitive judgement to pastors and church-judicatories, which they themselves had need to explain what they mean by: for, 1. must every private man stand to it, and not appeal from it to his judgement of discretion? 2. if they do not stand to it, what inconve­nience, harm or danger, or worse consequence can befall him, then any one that despiseth good counsell or advice, which put no obligation, except they be reduced into lawes and com­mands by the magistrate? 3. must the magistrate adhere to that definitive judgement, and com­mand them without debating within himself whether those definitions be agreable with his own publick or private judgement? which in­deed is to make of him an executioner. If he must not stand to the definitions of pastors and synods, but rather they must stand to what he conceiveth most fitting; then it is evident that that judgement of pastors, called by them defi­nitive, is of no validity, and hath need to take another name, since neither magistrate nor pri­vate men are obliged to stand to it, except they be convinced that it is reasonable, and that its definitions are true, just and usefull.

The evidence of this truth about judgement is so clear, that Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are unwares carried sometimes to deliver the substance of what we said before. I will alledge but two passages out of Mr. Rutherfurds book, of the divine right of church-government; for [Page 49] there he overthroweth his definitive judgement of pastors or church-judicatories, and setteth above it not only the judgement of the magi­strate, but also that of every private man: for sure, that definitive judgement that may be re­versed and rejected without any redresse by the ministers, cannot be of any weight or vali­dity.

The first passage is ch. 25. quest. 21. p. 668. The magistrate is not more tyed to the judge­ment of a synod or church, then any private man is tyed to his practise. The tye in disci­pline, and in all synodicall acts and determina­tions, is here as it is in preaching the word: the tye is secondary, conditionall, with limitation, so far forth as it agreeth with the word; not absolutely obliging, not Papal qua, nor because commanded, or because determined by the church; and such as magistrates and all Chri­stians may reject, when contrary to or not war­ranted by the word of God. If such words had faln from Grotius or Mr. Coleman, they would have been branded for rank Erastianisme. If all the presbyterians will but put their names with probatum est to them, all controversie will be ended, and the power in the hands of church-officers will be no longer distinct from that of the magistrate, and all presbyterian jurisdiction of excommunicating, deposing, and making lawes authoritatively, will be taken away. So that, if we give credit to Mr. Rutherfurd, all acts, [Page 50] sentences and excommunications pronounced by synods and presbyteries, are no further va­lide, then as they are conceived by the magi­strates and private men agreeable with the word.

The other passage of Mr. Rutherfurd doth no lesse pull down the definitive judgement of ministers, and by it all presbyterian jurisdiction; p. 577. As the church is to approve and com­mand the just sentence of the civill judge in punishing ill doers; but only conditionally, so far as it is just: so is the magistrate obliged to follow, ratifie, and with his civil sanction con­firm the sound constitutions of the church, but conditionally; not absolutely and blindly, but only so far as they agree with the word of God.

Studying brevity, I am loth to load the reader with authorities out of most eminent divines, Zanchius, Martyr, Iunius, Pareus, Camero, Ri­vetus, and others; all jointly proving, 1. that all the judgements and sentences of synods, church-judicatories, presbyteries, are mere counsels, ad­vices, and no lawes obliging to obedience or to assent, except they receive the ultimate sanction from the magistrate; 2. that the magistrate ought not to take the ministers or synods judge­ment barely because it comes from them, but follow his own judgement. I will alledge but one or two out of Pareus, and one out of Rive­tus,

That of Pareus is on the 13. Rom. All faith­full, even private men, ought to judge of faith and of religion; not only with an apprehensive judgement, that by it they may understand the true religion; but also with a judgement of discretion, that they may distinguish the true from the false, hold to one and reject the other: much more ought the Christian magistrate to judge of the religion, not only apprehensively and discretively, but also definitively. Here we have a definitive judgement proper to ma­gistrates as well as to ministers and church-ju­dicatories. In the same place; A Prince ought to defend the true religion, suppresse the false, banish blasphemies and heresies: he ought then to know of all these singly, and by his office judge of them: for if he were only to draw the sword at the beck of the priests, without know­ledge and judgement, and without making any question whether the judgements of the pastors are right or no; what would he be but a sergeant and an executioner, as the Iewes made of Pi­late, saving to him, If he had not been a male­factour, we would not have delivered him to thee?

Rivet on the decalogue hath these words: We joyn those two together: that the magistrate should not only act by others prejudice, but also by his own judgement; not that he should trust so much to his, but also let ministers of the Gospell have their parts; not relying on his [Page 52] fancy, but being counselled by the pastors of churches, calling synods, and there hearing godly and learned men discoursing out of the word of God, of controversies of religion, and of articles of faith; then what he hath himself approved of to be the truth, let him embrace it and spread it. There he maketh no more of synods, then a Prince of his state-counsellors, or a sick man of his physitians, whose judge­ments they take for counsells and advices, and not for definitive sentences. And so speaketh Maresius Coll. Theol. loc. 16. thes. 77. Mini­sters of churches do not so much represent judges in a senat, as prudent doctors and learned, gathered to give counsell; and their result is like the advice of physitians about the health of the body.

By what I have said of judgement, and al­ledged out of Mr. Rutherfurd, that question so much debated betwixt the Romanists and the Protestants, who is the judge of controversies in matters of faith, is easily decided: for doubtlesse the ministers of the Gospell have by their educa­tion, function and ministeriall duty, that pub­lick judgement to declare either in churches or synods, what by the judgement of discretion they conceive to be the mind and the ordinance of Christ; but this judgement inforceth and obligeth no man to assent to it, except they also by their private judgement of discretion appre­hend it to be such. So ought neither magistrates, [Page 53] nor the power of magistracy seated in churches, to command or enjoyn it as a law to be obeyed, or a doctrine to be believed, except apprehended by the judgement of discretion to be the mind or an ordinance of Christ. Ministers in divinity, physitians in physick, each professour of art in his art, not only because they are more versed in that thing they professe, but also ex officio, have a judgement that carrieth and giveth more au­thority; but it being fallible, and therefore sub­ject to the revisall of others, whether magistrates or subjects, and not attended with command obliging to obedience, either active or passive, it is only authentick to them that are perswaded and convinced to yield to it.

CHAPTER V.

THe reverend Assembly of Divines, in the 30. and 31. chapters of their Confession of [Page 54] Faith, are strong assertors of a double jurisdi­ction. Before I come to examine what they say, and their proofs alledged in the margent, I would be well understood, that I do not quar­rell against the spirituall jurisdiction over the inward man in the ministery; when a minister doth command from Christ, and the people yields obedience, being once inlightened and convinced: all is done on both parts wil­lingly, and not by constraint: the weapons of that jurisdiction are not carnall, and yet very mighty; not by putting away by excommuni­cation, but by pulling down the strong holds of sin, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2. Cor. 10. v. 4. & 5. The Lord Iesus Christ, (say they, sect. 1.) as King and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of Church-officers distinct from the civil magi­strate.

It may be the Rev. Assembly do only intend to adjudge jurisdiction to other church-assem­blies and synods, and none to themselves, for these reasons.

1. They were bound by their charter by which they were called, not to exercise any jurisdicti­on and authority ecclesiasticall whatsoever, or any other power, (for these be the words of the ordinance;) and besides, are en joyned, not to assume any authority, but to advise and give counsell upon such things as shall be pro­pounded [Page 55] to them, and to deliver their opinions and advices.

2. And the same they did by their practise; for they assumed no jurisdiction, but having per­fected the Confession of Faith, the Catechisme, & platform of government, they presented them to the Parliament under the name of humble ad­vice: for they were not to determine any thing authoritatively, albeit they pretend no lesse was due unto them, as they speak in the 31. chapter sect. 3. that ministers in synods may determine authoritatively matters of religion.

3. But both the power which was delegated to the Assembly, and the exercise of that power during their sitting at Westminster, being a lively representation of the extent of power which all councels & synods under an orthodox magistrate ever enjoyed or ought to have, I wonder much they would ascribe judiciall au­thority to ministers in synods, which they them­selves had not, never look't for, were not to have, and which they never saw practised be­fore in any assemblies convocated by the magi­strate.

4. Had the Lord Jesus Christ instituted a jurisdiction distinct and independent from the magistrate, they were to disclaim that ordinance which delegated a power which was none of their own, but was derived immediatly from Christ, not by the intervention and the chanell of the magistrate, unto themselves as ministers [Page 56] of Christ: and if any ordinance before their sit­ting was to be expected, it was not to be di­rected to the ministers, but to the people, who were to be enjoyned to suffer the ministers to exercise that jurisdiction which they authorita­tively challenge from Jesus Christ.

5. Had the jurisdiction of the Assembly been acknowledged, the magistrate, as our brethren the Scots speak, should have submitted to all re­solutions of the Assembly, being no longer hum­ble advices, but canons, decrees and lawes made authoritatively, by the Governours of churches under Iesus Christ.

But what sense can be given to these words, when they say, there is a government distinct from the magistrate? Is it such a distinction as is betwixt subordinates, or betwixt coordinates? If the magistrates power and the presbyterian power are coordinates, each must needs be in­dependent one from the other; which how in­consistent it is under one magistrate, we have discussed in another place. If these powers be subordinate, it must be one of these three wayes: 1. in coercive power; 2. in judgement or judiciall determinations, that are to passe for lawes, obli­ging all sorts of people to obedience either active or passive: 3. in the affinity of power in nature and definition, which necessarily im­ports subordination betwixt them. 1. For mat­ter of coercive power, the ecclesiasticall having none, they must be beholden to another power, [Page 57] which indeed makes it to be power; all externall power and jurisdiction being but childrens play, ens rationis, a bubble, a name without a thing, without a power of coercion. 2. For judgement; if ecclesiasticall men cannot exe­cute their power without the magistrate, the question will be whether he shall execute their injunctions as a judge and interpreter, or as a sergeant and executioner, not interpreting the commands of the court, but fulfilling them with a blind obedience and judgement: for there is no medium betwixt these two. If as a judge, then he ought to judge of the judgements of mi­nisters, ere he doth command them to be ob­served; and so in a manner all determinations of ministers will be but counsels and advices, seeing before they have force of law and of rule, they must receive the ultimate judgement and approbation from the magistrate. 3. Subordina­tion of powers implieth affinity of definition and nature betwixt the subordinates: as Surgerie being subordinate to Medicine, proveth the affi­nity betwixt Medicine and Surgery. Yea, if subordinate jurisdictions stand in pari gradu, and in equall distance from the power they are subordinate unto, it argueth an identity of ju­risdictions among them: as if the jurisdiction of a colledge of physitians and of a corporation of merchants be both subordinate to one magi­strate, it is manifest that the jurisdiction of that colledge and of that corporation are but one, as [Page 58] springing from one head of jurisdiction; thus if the jurisdictions of a church and of a corpora­tion are of equall distance in subordination from one spring-head of jurisdiction, no doubt the jurisdiction of that church and of that cor­poration are but one jurisdiction.

Now that the nature of the jurisdiction of pa­stors, churches and synods, is the same with that of magistracy, & needeth not to be coordi­nate with it, it is evident by many proofs.

1. There is the same use of judgement, pru­dence and discretion: as by the same yard one may measure cloth, silk and thred; so may the same wise politicall head, and the same pru­dence and discretion govern a state, a church, and a family. Dionysius the tyrant used to say, he did employ the same art in governing his school at Corinth, and his Kingdom of Si­cily.

2. There is the same nature of law in both jurisdictions: for the nature of the law consi­steth not in its being just, equall and honest; but in its being published by him or them that are invested with magistracy. The better men, (that is, not the wiser and the most rationall, but the richer and the most potent) give law to the rest. The philosophers permit us to weigh and interpret their lawes; but the magistrate en­joyneth blind obedience to his. Seneca saith that the magistrates law doth not dispute, but commandeth: and Tullie in his th [...]d book de [Page 59] natura Deorum saith, I am to receive from thee, O philosopher, satisfaction from reason; but I am to yield to the lawes that our ance­stours have delivered us, though they give no reason. In like manner all presbyterian synods, namely the generall assembly of Scotland, do not give so much leave to inferiour ecclesiasti­call judicatories or private persons, to examine their decrees by a judgement of discretion, as those of Beroea took to themselves when they examined St. Pauls doctrine, and searched the Scripture, to know whether it was so as he preached: for their ecclesiasticall constitutions have force of law, only because they have the sanction of an ecclesiasticall assembly, and are not to be disputed by any inferiour judica­tory; whereas the nature of an ecclesiasticall law should be quite different from the civil, viz. that it should not be the product of a jurisdicti­on compelling or requiring to assent or obey, ex­cept the inward man be perswaded and con­vinced. It may be our presbyterian brethren will say that, for example, excommunication hath no further validity of sentence, then as it is just, and done deservedly: which indeed proves the nullity of all excommunications; for all being done in the name of Christ, all must needs be just and valid, and every one excommunica­ting in the name of Christ should excommuni­cate infallibly, and his excommunication should be an effect of an unerring judgement; which [Page 60] till it be known to be infallible, a man may just­ly question the validity of his excommunica­tion.

3. In this also there is a great affinity and agreement betwixt the jurisdiction they call ec­clesiasticall, and the civil (and therefore no need to make two of one;) that ecclesiasticall pres­byterian jurisdiction is bounded by the same li­mits as is the civill jurisdiction, which is against the nature of all other jurisdictions different from the magistrates power, though subordinate to it, as is the maritall and paternall powers; none doubting but a father in England hath a power over his son in France, and that a wife is subject to her husband however distant from him. Now it is granted by all, that the jurisdi­ction of churches combined, and that of synods never went beyond the magistrates jurisdiction; that the churches of Persia, Aethiopia and India were not tyed to observe the deciees of the first councill of Nice, nor the reformed churches of France those of the synod of Dordrecht, neither the church of Barwick to submit to the orders of the generall assembly of Scotland: and yet some do not stick to maintain, that a man ex­communicated in Scotland, is also bound by the same sentence in France or Holland, because, if we may believe them, it is reasonable that the sphear of activity within which excommunica­tion acteth should as much spread down wards as upwards; and that since a man bound by ex­communication [Page 61] at Edenburgh is also tyed in heaven, good reason he should be bound and fast in any part of the earth.

4. This also which all churches, classes and synods assume, makes their jurisdiction wholly concurring in nature and property with the ju­risdiction of the magistrate; which is, that as in all civil and politicall assemblies, the major and the stronger part in votes, not in reasons, doth carry it; so decrees and canons, because the major part have voted them to be such, are therefore receivable by inferiour ecclesiasticall judicatories, as they call them: whereas, since they pretend that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is of a quite different nature from that of the magi­strate, it were most convenient that it should not be like it in this main particular, but that private men or churches should adhere to truth, not to multitude; not numbring the votes, but weighing the reasons.

And indeed this was well considered by the Parliament, in their ordinance for calling of the assembly: for though they took upon themselves that power of legislation & jurisdiction, whose votes are not weighed, but numbred, and which cannot be otherwise exercised in this world; yet they very prudently conceived, that such a jurisdiction could not be assumed by church­men, as such, in matters of religion: for they ne­ver intended, that whatsoever should be transacted or defined by the major part of the [Page 62] ministers of the Assembly, should be received for a canon and an ecclesiasticall law, that should stand in force; since they expressely en­joyn, in the rules which they prescribed to the assembly, 1. that their decisions and definitions should be presented to the Parliament, not un­der the name of law made to them, but of hum­ble advice; 2. that no regard should be had to the number of the persons dissenting or assent­ing, but that each party should subscribe their names to their opinion.

5. Another argument to prove that the ec­clesiasticall and the magistrates power are not coordinate, but that the ecclesiasticall is subor­dinate to that of the magistrate, and that they both are of the same nature, is, that both of them, magistrate and ministers, challenge not only the duty of messengers from God, in deli­vering to the people the lawes of God; but also as judges exercise power about making new lawes, which do oblige to obedience for con­science sake: for the assemblies & presbyteries of Scotland do not only presse obedience to the lawes expressely set down in Scripture, but also to their canons, decrees and constitu­tions.

6. Another argument to prove the identity of the powers ecclesiasticall and civil is, that both are conversant about lawes and constitu­tions that are made by men: such are most of the canons and constitutions of synods and [Page 63] ecclesiasticall assemblies, which are no more expresse Scripture then the Instinian Code: and therefore it is altogether needlesse to constitute two coordinate humane legislative powers.

7. But suppose that all the decrees, canons, constitutions of presbyteries and church-assem­blies were word of God, and divine precepts, this very thing, that they are divine constitu­tions, and that one jurisdiction or other must be conceived enjoyning by a sanction, and commanding obedience to them, argueth that ecclesiasticall and civil jurisdiction are but one: For what can the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction do more, then to give a sanction to the lawes of God? which thing the magistrate is to do. If he must give a sanction to the decalogue, why not to all other precepts which are equally of divine institution?

8. It is absurd to put under the Gospell a difference betwixt the jurisdiction or law of Christ, and the law of God the universall Mo­narch, as Mr. Gillespie speaketh p. 261. for there is no precept of the decalogue, there is nothing good, holy, honest and of good report, but is the law of Jesus Christ: and therefore since the magistrate cannot be [...], a minister of God, as St. Paul calls him, but he must be a mi­nister of Jesus Christ, and that he cannot be keeper of the decalogue and of the law of God under Moses administration, but he must be also the keeper of the law of Christ; what need [Page 64] to constitute two coordinate judiciall powers, each of them being pari gradu subordinate to Jesus Christ?

Lastly, if the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world, and that this Kingdom, as our brethren tell us, is the presbyterian govern­ment, then this Kingdom must have a jurisdi­ction and lawes quite different from the King­dom and jurisdiction of this world; which yet doth not prove true by the parallels we have made of both jurisdictions.

Mr. Gillespie, a member of that Assembly, pag. 85. endeavoureth to shew what a wide difference there is betwixt these two jurisdi­ctions, in their nature, causes, objects, adjuncts: but I might upon the same grounds maintain the like wide difference betwixt martiall, navall, testamentall, paternall, maritall and civil power; all differing, and yet subordinate to that of the magistrate. I might also at­tribute to each society its peculiar power; pla­cing in a colledge of physicians a medicall power, subordinate to God the God of bodies, health and outward safety, as the civil is subor­dinate to the God of the Universe, and the eccle­siasticall to Christ. For if the God of nations hath instituted the civil power, and the God of saints the ecclesiasticall, as Mr. Gillespie speak­eth; what hinders but that the God of nature hath instituted the medicall power? And if mo­rall good be the object of the civil power, and [Page 65] spirituall good of the spirituall power; why may not bodily health be the object of the medicall power?

CHAPTER VI.

WE proceed to examine what the Rever. As­sembly say, that Jesus Christ hath insti­tuted this ecclesiasticall [...]sdiction as King and head of his Church. Mr. Gillespie, one of their body, and therefore the best interpreter of their meaning, saith in his 2. book chap. 5. that Jesus Christ hath two Kingdoms: 1. a generall, as he is the eternall Son of God, the head of all principalities & powers, raigning over all crea­tures; 2. a particular Kingdom, as he is me­diatour, raigning over the church only: by which church he understandeth a visible church of saints, combined in such a body as is the church of Scotland, enjoying the ordinances and the discipline of Christ. And of this Kingdom he understandeth Matth. 16. v. 28. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his King­dom. [Page 66] So doth Beza against Erastus, who, with Mr. Gillespie, out of those words of Christ, my Kingdom is not of this world, concludeth two things: 1. that the ecclesiasticall government is distinct from the civill or that of the magi­strate; 2. that that Kingdom is an aggregation of many churches under one presbytery.

In the 6. chap. of the same book he is very prolix to prove, that Jesus Christ, as mediatour and head of the Church, hath not appointed the magistrate to be his viceregent in the go­vernment of the church in the second accepti­on.

I confesse that the holy Scripture mentioneth two Kingdoms; but that both these be visible ones, I deny flatly: particularly, that Jesus Christ is called King and head of the church, in reference to the visible congregations of Chri­stians, or that by the body of Christ is meant the visible assembly of those that make outward profession of the Christian religion.

Let us then consider in this Kingdom of Je­sus Christ as mediatour, the nature of the King and head, of his scepter, sword, power, weapons, keyes, fullnesse; that so we may see if all these qualifications, yea if any one of these are proper to any visible church particular and nationall.

Both Rivet and Reynolds, in their comments upon the 110. Psalme, make this Kingdom wholly spirituall, not of this world, much lesse [Page 67] seen in this world, though known to be in this world. It is that Kingdom which is many times mentioned in the Gospell; but never once taken for a visible government of men professing out­wardly the name of Christ, but for the Kingdom of grace, and that government which Christ hath over those whom he ruleth by his spirit of ad­option. The keyes of this Kingdom are the door of utterance in the ministery, whereby men have entrance: these keyes keep out from com­ing in those that are without doors, but never put out any that are once in; and therefore most absurd it is to ground the power of excommuni­cation upon the power of the keyes, committed by Jesus Christ to the Apostles: if the Kingdom of which Christ speaketh is the Kingdom of hea­ven or of grace, will they say that an excommu­nicated person is put o [...] of the Kingdom of grace? The scepter and sword of this Kingdom is the word of God. The weapons are not car­nall; nor are they used to the putting a man out by excommunication: but to the pulling down the strong holds of sin; not by tying a man with church-censures, but bringing into capti­vity his imaginations to the obedience of Christ. This truth broke through the darknesse of po­pery, and was acknowledged by those that were oppressed by the Popes tyrannie: so in the year 1080. the advocate of the Emperour confut. 9. saith, that the preaching of Gregory the 7. was new, since the church had no other sword then [Page 68] that of the spirit, which was the word of God. This language was acknowledged by the cano­nists to be in the mouths of the Popes adversa­ries, who yet kept within the communion of Rome, never dreaming of a Wicleff or a Luther; as can. inter. 33. quest. 3. Ecclesia non habet gladium nisi spiritualem, qui non occidit, sed vivisificat.

The law of this Kingdom is not the discipline or censure of the church, but the law both of the Gospell and of faith, called also the law of the spirit. For by the power of that Kingdom, de­scribed by the holy Ghost in the new Testament, and mentioned in 50. places, is not in any of them understood the ecclesiasticall power, or any such thing as the power of ministers, pres­byteries, synods, to make decrees, canons, to de­termine authoritatively, to suspend, excommu­nicate and absolve: but alwayes is meant that power that translateth from darknesse to light, and from the power of satan unto God; by which we are made sons of God, Ioh. 1. v. 12. by which we are enlightened, Act. 26. v. 18. and raised unto newnesse of life.

The fullnesse of that Kingdom is, the saving gifts and graces given to the members. The head of this Kingdom is Jesus Christ, our King, Priest and Prophet, ruling by his spirit his sub­jects which are his members, offering, satisfying and interceding only for them, teaching none savingly but them.

There is no governour or viceregent of this church, but the spirit of God working in the heart by the word preached or read, and guiding into all truth. Though God hath no visible go­vernours of this Kingdom, yet he hath exter­nally many subservient instruments and mini­sters for the advancing of that Kingdom; as magistrates by their jurisdiction, pastors by their function, all godly people by their generall calling and dutie, their persecutions, afflictions, maladies; and particularly the ministers of the Gospell are main agents in Gods hands for the building up of that Kingdom. What they know they do, is the least part of their ministery; they themselves being ignorant, what and how they work by it in mens hearts. Gods chief minister is Christ in the word: the power is the effica­cious working of the word: the keyes are the openings of the heart to the word, or rather the openings of the word to the heart, and the re­ceiving of the person into the heavenly fellow­ship.

This power is not placed in the ministers, but the word; which though it is delivered by them not only in a way of beseeching and exhorting, but also of commanding, yet that jurisdiction is only effectuall on those that of unwilling are rendred willing: so that it is rather the ju­risdiction of the word, then of the minister: for the ministers operation in the ministery is like to that of the artists in their chymicall opera­tions, [Page 70] where they are rather spectators then actors, admovendo agentia passivis; for nature and fire are the main agents. They are like an husbandman in a vintage, who maketh not the wine, but ordereth it, powring it from one vessel to another.

This being the nature of the Kingdom and church of God, of which Christ is the head and King; it remaineth to enquire, who is the vicere­gent of God, in governing the visible congre­gations of Christians meeting about the wor­ship of God.

Properly the magistrate is not head of the church, more then of other societies: for as the callings of a physitian, merchant, smith, sea­man, so of a Christian, as Christian and church­member, are not subordinate to magistracy; but only under the notion of, and as they are mem­bers of families, societies, corporations and commonwealths: in all which magistracy is virtually and eminently resident; in regard that no society of men can be imagined to be go­verned either without a power delegate from the magistrate, or without assuming magistracy within it self.

In that sense the magistrate may be said, for these three or four reasons, to be head of a visi­ble nationall church. 1. Because the matter, man­ner and extent of the power exercised by that church, being wholly the same with that of the magistrate, it is needlesse to make of one power [Page 71] two; and therefore the magistrate being the supreme governour in the managing of that power exercised alike in all kinds of societies within his dominion, he may very properly be the supreme governour as well of churches, as of all other societies.

2. The magistrate may be said to be head of the visible church, because there is no man, of what place, function, calling, dignity so ever he be, that in an externall visible way can so much promote the interest of Jesus Christ, and the building up of his Kingdom, as the supreme magistrate; not so much considered as Christian, but as magistrate, and by vertue of his magi­stracy. None doth doubt but that one single woman, namely Queen Elizabeth, being a ma­gistrate, did contribute more for establishing and spreading the Gospell of Christ in England, then all the godly ministers put together in the dayes of Queen Mary.

Let but one single magistrate countenance religion, this will avail more then thousands of Greenhams or Bradfords under a magistrate of a contrary religion. Sure, where God hath given more ability and power to do good, he also hath placed there more right & duty to promote that good. I think there was more stresse of duty laid upon Queen Elizabeth to advance Christs King­dom in England, then on 100. Bradfords, Lati­mers and Ridleys in Queen Maries dayes.

A 3. ground may be added, why the sove­reign [Page 72] magistrate may be called the head of the church, (and which is much pressed by Rey­nolds, Martyr, Musculus, Bullingerus, Gual­terus, Zanchius, Pareus,) is, because all the de­cisions of ministers about matters of faith or discipline, are but mere counsels, advices and di­rections; not binding externally, that is actively or passively, any church, society or corporati­on, except they receive a sanction from the ma­gistrate: and besides that these sanctions are not to be made by him caeco judicio, with a blind judgement, standing to their determina­tion, without examination, and doing as much as those of Beroea, who ere they believed St. Paul, searched the Scriptures, to know whether it was so as he preached. As no obedience is to be rendred by any person, society or corporation, without they duly weigh in their judgement of discretion whether the command be just or no: so a command is not to be made by the person whose duty and part it is to command, untill he first understandeth and apprehendeth by his judgement of discretion the thing to be a good and a fitting rule of obedience. So that since presbyteries and [...]ynods cannot enforce obliga­tion of obedience to their declarations and de­cisions, without the injunction and command of the magistrate; since also he is not to enjoin or command any thing repugnant to his own judgement; it doth consequently follow, that good reason it is, that he who last is to judge [Page 73] and command any thing, propounded and de­bated in whatever assembly of men, should be stiled the sovereign judge, head, ruler, and go­vernour of those things that are solely in his own power.

Fourthly, he may be said to be head of the church, because of three main duties which are annexed to his office of magistracy, which com­prehend what is requisite for life, godlinesse and happinesse. The 1. is provisio mediorum conducentium ad finem optimum, provision of the means conducing to the best end: 2. remo­tio impedientium, the removing of hinde­rances: 3. actualis directio in illum finem, an actuall direction & ordering things to that end.

These 3. conditions Javellus a Romish Bishop layes down to assert the soveraign power of the magistrate, in judging, providing, or­dering, and removing, in order to obtaining the best end, which he saith is the main felicity of man.

Lastly, he may be well called head of the church, that receiveth appeals from all church-judicatories, and disannuls or ratifies their judgements and sentences. But Mr. Rutherfurd denieth those acts to be appeals, being not in eadem serie, from a lower ecclesiasticall court to a superiour ecclesiasticall court; and saith, that from an ecclesiasticall court to a civil, as to the magistrate, there is no appeal, but a removall by a declinator, a complaint, a refuge. But we [Page 74] having proved that synods, presbyteries, &c. have no jurisdiction but what they have from the magistrate; therefore all appeals from a church-judicatorie to the magistrate, are but from an inseriour court of the magistrate to a superiour of the same magistrate. Rivet on the decalogue had not learned such squibs of di­stinctions betwixt appeals and refuges, com­plaints and declinators; for by any means he would have men to appeal to the magistrate from church-sentences: Ministers as ministers are the subjects of the soveraign magistrate, and why may it not be lawfull for subjects to appeal from the judgements of subjects to the supreme magistrate? and why may it not be lawfull to the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects, to ratifie them, if they be good, and abolish them, if they be bad? For call those removals what you will, so that the thing be still the same: for he that from an unjust sentence of a church-judicatorie hath his recourse to the magistrate, both declines the sentence of that court, appeals to a higher court, and makes his complaint to him that can re­dresse him, help him, and disannull the first sen­tence. I confesse, if a man be condemned in England, he may have his refuge to some neighbour Prince: but this Prince can but pro­tect him from the execution of the sentence a­gainst him; but cannot disannull the sentence against him, nor restore him in statu quo prius. [Page 75] Such are the examples of Chrysostomus, Fla­vianus and Athanasius, which are to no pur­pose: for they repaired to the Bishop of Rome, desiring indeed to be judged by him; but they did not look upon him as their superiour that could relieve them, and quash the sentence a­gainst them; they repaired to him only as to a mediatour and intercessour.

Authorities should now make good what I have proved to be consonant to reason, such as might be brought out of the best reformers, as Martyr, Reynolds, Pareus, Chamier; who make no other supreme visible governour of the church then the soveraign magistrate: but I will not trouble the reader with many quotations. Yet to shew that this is no new doctrine, I might produce some famous Romish authors, who thought no lesse in the darkest times of igno­rance: for so Claude Fauchet hath left written, a famous Historian and a Papist, in his book of the liberties of the Gallicane church; who out of Gregorie of Tours, and the practise of his time, proveth that the Kings of France were reputed heads of the church: a title which many 100. years after was much found fault with in the Kings of England, by the Romanists, yea by some reformers. He concludes his discourse thus: which sheweth, that the Bishops of that time did hold, the King, assisted by his counsell of State, to be under God head on earth of the church in his Kingdom, and not the Pope; whom [Page 76] if they had looked on as the head, they would have sent unto him the conclusion of the coun­cill of Orleans, and not to King Clovis. So speaketh the author of the Review of the coun­cill of Trent, lib. 6. cap. 5. The ecclesiasticks in France do not hold their ecclesiastick jurisdi­ction from the Pope, but from the King; though the Iesuits teach otherwise.

CHAPTER VII.

ALl that I have said doth sufficiently over­throw what Mr. Gillespie alledgeth for a double jurisdiction, and against the magistrates being the chief governour of the church under Christ. To make good that, in a hundred places he doth much under value the magistrates power in sacred things: namely p. 187. that the ma­gistrate, though Christian and godly, doth not exnatura rei, and in regard of his particular vocation, intend the glory of Iesus Christ, as mediator and King of the church. In the next page; The glory of Iesus Christ, as mediatour and King of the church, is not the end of ma­gistracy. [Page 77] And in the same page he saith, that the end of magistracy is not godlinesse & honesty, but peace and quietnesse. Pag. 235. he saith, the magistrate is not to rule in the name of Christ. Pag. 250. he saith, the magistrate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate, but as a Christian. In the 294. page; the civil magistrate is Gods viceregent, not Christs: and ibid. If the magistrate be supreme head and governour of the church under Christ, then the ministers of the church are the magi­strates ministers as well as Christs, and must act in the magistrates name, and as subordi­nate to him; and the magistrate shall be Christs minister, and act in Christs name.

By all this he declareth his opinion, more then he proveth it. But to elude whatever strength this carries, I further adde, that God maketh use of two main instruments to promote and advance the Kingdom of Christ as media­tour.

1. The first is the sacred function, wholly set a part by God to preach the glad tidings of God reconciled to the world: which function was first laid on Christ, and then on the Apo­stles and the ministers of the Gospell, who are embassadors and messengers of & from Christ. In this function there is no jurisdiction annexed, but what the spirit in the word hath upon mens hearts for their conviction and conversion. In the exercise of this function there is no law [Page 78] made by him that bears it, but the law of the spirit; no censure inflicted, but on such as ei­ther willingly and not by constraint undergo it, and chose whether they will or no; or when it pleaseth God in judgement to afflict the despisers of Gods ministers & ordinances. This function, I grant, is not exercised in the magi­strates name, but Christs, nor is it subordinate to him.

2. The second thing servient (if I may so speak) and subservient to the promoting of the Kingdom of Christ, is the magistrate and magi­stracy; in as much as (which I said before) it cannot be that ministers and people assemble, synods be called, an outward government settled, lawes published, good men rewarded, bad men punished, heresies and hereticks rejected, ministers maintained, union preserved, except ministers, people, synods be invested with a power of magistrate and magistra­cy.

These two, as I suppose, being undeniably true, all Mr. Gillespies assertions above-men­tioned will be found built upon the sand. The magistrate having not the sacred function on him, is no minister nor ambassadour of and from Christ, neither doth the inward operative jurisdiction annexed to the sacred function a­rise from magistracy ex natura rei. In that re­gard the minister preaching the Gospell, and exercising his pastorall function, is not the [Page 79] magistrates minister, but Christs. But as magi­stracy is the second necessary instrument which God employeth to promote the Kingdom of his Son in the world; and for as much as it cannot be so much as imagined, that magistracy is inherent in all pastors and assemblies of churches and synods; no doubt but the ministers in that consideration may be called the magi­strates ministers, as both in the same respect are Christs ministers. If Christs Kingdom cannot be nor ever was promoted without magistracy actually present and acting, then the magi­strate is a main minister of Christ in those acts.

Reverend and learned Mr. Lightfoot, in his Harmony of the New Testament, upon the 1 Cor. 5. clearly evinceth, that church-officers cannot be so much as conceived to govern the churches without magistracy either assumed or delegated: for having told us, that every syna­gogue of the Jewes had magistracy within their own body, judging betwixt party and party in matters of money, Health, damage, yea in­flicting corporall punishments; he addeth, all things well considered, it may not be so mon­strons as it seems to some, to say, it might very well be so in those times of Christian con­gregations: for since, as it might be shewed, Christ and his Apostles, in platforming the modell of Christian churches in those times, did keep very close to the platform of synagogues; [Page 80] and since the Romans in those times made no difference betwixt Iewes Iudaizing, and Iewes that were turned Christians, for as yet there was no persecution raised against Christiani­ty; why might not Christian congregations have and exercise their double function of ministry and magistracy in them, as well as the Iewish synagogues? and if that much controverted place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. should be interpreted ac­cording to such a rule, it were neither irratio­nall nor improbable. Here by the way one may see, that in synagogues there were severall fun­ctions, but one Imperium and jurisdiction, which was that of magistracy; 2. that the churches of Christians were modelled according to Iewish synagogues; 3. that every church had both ministery and magistracy.

By this likewise down goeth what he saith, that the magistrate, though Christian and godly, doth not in regard of his particular vocation in­tend the glory of Jesus Christ, as mediatour and King of the church. The main end as well as duty of magistracy is, the care of religion, and so of Christian religion: his aime is, and ought to be, not so much peace and quietnesse, as god­linesse and honesty. Must a magistrate hide his power, which is his talent, in a napkin? were not Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by their paternall, magistraticall power tyed to promote Gods true worship?

It is very strange doctrine, when he saith [Page 81] p. 189. that the end of an ecclesiasticall sentence, as delivering to Satan, is, that men may learn not to blaspheme; but the end of the magistrate in punishing blasphemers, is only that justice may be done according to law, and that peace and good order may be maintained. A rank papist could hardly speak more crudely. Ought not this to be the end of the magistrate in pu­nishing transgressours, if it be not by death, that they may change their lives, and be better then they were? Were not reformation of life the end for which a blasphemer is punished, but only peace and quietnesse, the magistrate might as well let him go unpunished, if he can but ob­tain his end, which, as Mr. Gillespie saith, is peace and quietnesse; which hath been often obtained when no blasphemers were punished. It is observed, that in Augustus time there was for 12. years through all the Roman Empire peace and quietnesse, though the life of all his subjects were a perpetuall blasphemy against God.

But, I pray, how can Christs church be ruled by magistracy, except it be in the name of Christ, promote the interest of Jesus Christ, and ayme at the glory of Jesus Christ? When he saith, that the magi [...]rate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate, but as a Christian, and that he governs not as a Christian, but as a magistrate; I confesse I understand not, why I may not say as well, that a pastor is not a mem­ber [Page 82] of a church as pastor, but as a Christian: for there be in the church as well Balaams and false teachers, as persecuting magistrates. Why may I not say, that a father is not to teach the fear of the Lord to his son as a father, but as a Christian? for the magistrate is not to rule and order affairs of the church as a Christian, but as a magistrate: otherwise a Christian, without the office of magistracy, might do the like. How can the duty about the exercise of a power be divided from the power it self, as that a magi­strate should be by his duty of magistracy keeper of both tables, and yet should have no power given from God for the keeping of these tables?

But, which is most al surd, how can the keeping of the two tables under the Gospell be separate from the keeping of the doctrine and discipline of the Gospell, as that the magistrate should be keeper of one, and the pastors of the other? If the magistrate under the old Testa­ment was keeper not only of the decalogue, but also of the covenant of grace, by which the people of Israel was distinguished from the rest of the world; what hinders but he should be under the Gospells administration a keeper both of the law and Gospell? except Mr. Gillespie say, that the priests were keepers of the law whereof David speaketh in the 19 Psalme, and the magistrate keeper of the two tables given in mount Sinai.

As for the magistrates being a member of the church, and therefore no head or governour of the church; I believe he is as much lyable to submit and stoup his will to the commands of Christ in the ministery, as the lowest in the congregation: he must acknowledge his minister the better man, as honoured with the highest function that ever was, and which the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ took upon him. But were all the ministers of the Gospell as many Jesus Christs, I would yield unto them all alike jurisdiction over the wills and minds of men; but deny them an externall coercive judiciall power over their bodies, estates, liberties, &c.

CHAPTER VIII.

BUt I will plainly shew, that in this matter Mr. Gillespie doth manifestly contradict himself, and stands on no sure ground: for what he hath taken from the magistrate in some places, in others he restoreth to him: In some he grants as much to the magistrate as if he had been another Erastus; in others he gives him nothing at all, and makes ecclesiasticall and ci­vil jurisdiction to be res disparatae, or things as [Page 84] much different as wisedome and a candlestick, being of severall classes and predicaments, so that one hath nothing to meddle with the other. Thus pag. 253. these be his words: We deny that in a well-constituted church, it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the magistrate either to receive appeals, properly so called, from the sentence of an ecclesiasticall court, or to re­ceive complaints exhibited against that sen­tence by that party censured, so as by his au­thority upon such a complaint to nullify or make void the ecclesiasticall censure.

This indeed is imperium in imperio, a juris­diction within a jurisdiction, and independent from it. Mr. Gillespie would not have a man to appeal from the presbytery or synod, or make complaints to the magistrate, nor a magistrate to receive the complaints; but he is contented that the magistrate should act the part of an exe­cutioner, in compelling the party censured to submit to the church-censure: which indeed is a most ungodly and tyrannicall proceeding, like that of Pope Julius the 2. who would have King Lewis the 12. to execute the sentence a­gainst the Waldenses by destroying them by the sword, and burning their cities, without taking any cognizance of the fact. And since all church-censures do signify just nothing, without a power of magistracy giving its san­ction for effectuating the sentence of the church; here, if we believe Mr. Gillespie, the [Page 85] pastor is like the intellect, and the magistrate the will, this following with a blind obedience the dictates of that.

But who shall judge, when the church is well constituted, that then the magistrate may not receive complaints and appeals? and may not sometimes wrong proceedings und unjust sen­tences passe in a well-constituted church, so long as a church never so pure is not infallible? and on the contrary, may not an unsettled church be very just in their censures? why then should it be more agreeable to the will of Christ to receive appeals from a just sentence in an un­settled church, then from an unjust one when the church is well-constituted? But when was ever such a well-constituted church, unerring in their judgement, as all appeals from their judgement to another should be unlawfull? was or is that church well-constituted, that either ever clashed with magistracy, or was divided in it self, as now it is?

Now we shall find Mr. Gillespie playing two other parts: under the one he ascribeth to the magistrate as much as ever they challenged; under the other vizard he chalks a middle way of magistrates power in sacred things, in which he seems to give something to the magistrate, but in truth gives nothing: however he is sure to raise a dust of distinctions, that neither satis­fy one nor the other.

Pag. 259. he alledgeth the 25. article of the [Page 86] confession of the church of Scotland, which saith, that to Kings, Princes, rulers and ma­gistrates chiefly and most principally the con­servation and the purgation of religion per­taineth; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing idolatry, and all superstition what soever.

He who never had heard of a double jurisdi­ction, ecclesiasticall and civil, or of a power of excommunicating, deposing, making lawes, and determining so authoritatively about mat­ters of faith and discipline, that the magistrate is not to revise their judgements, or receive complaints from church-judicatories; he who never, I say, had heard of these positions, would never deduct them by any consequence out of the words of the confession of Scotland quoted by Mr. Gillespie: for quite contrary, they unite all power into one; make the magistrate sole governour of churches, nationall, provinciall, and consistoriall, and sole judge of heresies, ca­nous, decrees, and church-censures; and besides overturn all Mr. Gillespies ground, upon which he thinks to have laid very fast the fabrick of his ecclesiasticall jurisdiction independent from the magistrate; and lastly, reinvest the ma­gistrate with the right and power which Mr. Gil­lespie hath taken from him, when every where he denieth these three things, 1. that the magi­strate as magistrate intends the glory of Jesus [Page 87] Christ, no otherwise then a sea-man or a picture-drawer as such, (see p. 187.) 2. that he is to rule in the name of Christ, p. 235. 3. that a ma­gistrate as such is subservient to Christ as me­diatour. But let us examine by parts the force of the words of the confession of Scotland, and how they agree with Mr. Gillespies usuall deter­minations.

1. That article of the confession ascribeth to the magistrate at least an equall jurisdiction over ecclesiasticall persons and things which he hath over civil, for they say, he is appointed not only for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion: so that equally he is charged by God to extirpate heresies, reform the church, and to purge the Commonwealth from seditions, abuses, crimes, &c.

2. Yea the article puts a great deal more stresse of duty upon the magistrate to govern the church, and maintain and reform the true religion, then to rule the Commonwealth; be­sides, making the end and ayme of magistrates and magistracy not so much peace and quiet­nesse, as honesty and godlinesse; and not so much the glory of his dominions, as that of Je­sus Christ.

3. But how can it be that, as the article saith, the magistrate should be appointed by God chiefly and principally for maintaining the true religion, for purging it from heresies, schisme, idolatry, &c. and yet the while he should not [Page 88] rule in the name of Christ, nor should be sub­servient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as me­diatour, as Mr. G [...]llespie speaketh? Can the Lord Iesus appoint officers, whose office and place is chiefly and principally to promote the interest of Iesus Christ, and yet those officers shall not intend that which chiefly they are to intend, and are appointed for, namely the glory of Iesus Christ, and the advancement of his Kingdom? How can the article stand with what he saith p. 187. that magistrates as such do not intend the glory of Iesus Christ, otherwise then a sea­man, a printer, a merchant? So that by what he saith, the magistrates act towards the pro­moting and advancing Christs Kingdom hath no more congruity then the act of a physitian building a house, which he doth not build as a physitian, but as an architect and builder. Thus Mr. Gillespie maketh not a magistrate or magi­stracy, but his Christian profession, subservient to the interest of Iesus Christ.

4. But how can the magistrates principall du­ty be to purge religion, extirpate idolatry and heresy, with a power only depending on God, except his judgement, in discerning what is true religion and what idolatry, be as absolute and independent on any judicatory, as his power and duty is? It God hath placed in the same person or persons both a duty and a power to reforme and purge religion, sure he hath not denyed him the main condition required to the [Page 89] discharge of that duty, and the exercise of that power; and that condition is the duty of a judge, whose judgement of a law or sentence, whether right or wrong, goeth alwayes along with his judicall power: so that the magistrate must judge with a judgement of discretion, and approbation of the truth, the goodnesse & equity of any matter propounded to [...] by presbyte­ries and synods, before it be law, [...], decree, or judiciall sentence, obliging externally men to obedience.

This language of the article of the confession of Scotland falls sometimes from Mr. Gillespies pen, as pag. 187. It lyes upon the magi­strate to advance that high and eminent voca­tion of his, that Christ may be glorified as King of the church: and p. 191. he saith, magistrates are appointed not only for civil policy, but for the conservation and purgation of religion. But Mr. Gillespie may be well excused, if he let fall such passages from his pen, pulling down with one hand what he hath set up with the o­ther; for Beza, a great advocate of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and by whom it hath taken a great rise, will sometimes thus forget himself, namely in an epistle of his (it is the 83.) to a namelesse friend, beating down at one blow his ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction independent from the magi­strate. The words are: Docet nos igitur Dei verbum, &c. The word of God teacheth us, that it is the duty of magistrates, to be even the [Page 90] chief guardians of ecclesiasticall order. There­fore their charge is to look and provide, that a presbytery rightly constituted according to the word of God, do act all things lawfully, and when need is, to interpose their authority, that things well judged and constituted be per­formed, that the ring leaders of disorders be restrained and punished according to their deserts. So likewise it is the office of the presbyterie, to implore the ayd of the magi­strate when needfull, and obey him when he rightly admonisheth. Certain it is, the magi­strate is made here sole judge, to pronounce when the presbyterie is well constituted, and its judgements are right, and to interpose his authority as he seeth cause. And at the end of the epistle, officium magistratus vel hoc prae­cipuum est, ut qui Domino ministrant legitime vocentur, & rite officio suo fungantur; It is even the chief duty of the magistrate, that those that minister to the Lord be lawfully called, and perform well their office. Thus the magistrate is made judge of the lawfullnesse of the call, and when ministers discharge their places aright. Sure he that hath the power to judge of the lawfulnesse of a call, hath likewise power to make the call null and void, in case it be not valid enough in his apprehension and judgement. Good Lord! what need is there to trouble the world with a distinct power from the magistrate, which is thus evacuated and made void by another power?

CHAPTER IX.

THus we see that even Erastus could say no more then Mr. Gillespie and the confession of Scotland. But Mr. Gillespie hath many eva­sions of modalities, causalities, and distinctions of power, by which he seems sometimes to make large concessions to the magistrate; but which, when he pleaseth, and it serves his turn, he can elude and bring to nothing, throwing in the eyes distinctions in great store, to confound the judgement; which is a strong argument of weaknesse & unsoundnesse, as of a house, so of a cause, when they need so many supporters: whereas those that plead for the magistrates power in sacred things, have need but of one only rule, to state and define the whole contro­versy about the magistrates power, and the mea­sure [Page 92] of obedience which all Christian churches, synods and presbyteries are to yield to them; and that rule is, that all men, either single, or convened and met in a society, under whatever name or title, do submit to and obey the magi­strate in all things that are not against faith and good manners. And these two things, 1. the internall power in the ministery, 2. and the ex­ternall power of the magistrate, nakedly under­stood, make short work, and rid us of that army of causes, kinds and distinctions of power and operations, which M. Gillespie opposeth to a single combatant; who notwithstanding is much stronger with his one only weapon, then Mr. Gil [...]espie with his thousands; as the fa­ble saith of the cat, whose one only caveat and shift to avoid [...], by climbing up the first tree or house, did more avail for her preserva­tion, then the whole bag-full of wiles and policies of the fox.

It were an endlesse labour, to bring into a body all the divisions, distinctions, causalities, modalities, forms and objects of powers, disper­sed in Mr. Gillespies book. Pag. 191. he ma­keth two objects about which ecclesiasticall power is conversant: first, the object of the ma­gistrates care of religion, and the object of the operation of that care. Thus he and others make a power which he calls a care of the religion, and another a care about religion.

As for the power itself considered generally, [Page 93] they make it double, ecclesiasticall and civil: this is wholly the magistrates; in the other the magistrate hath also a share: for they say, this ecciesiasticall power is exercised either in a poli­tick way, or in an ecclesiasticall way: thus they make an ecclesiasticall civil power residing in the magistrate.

Next, they divide ecclesiasticall power into intrinsecall and extrinsecall, into direct and indirect; the extrinsecall and indirect they yield to the magistrate: thus you have again an ecclesiasticall power belonging to the magi­strate. Again, they have an objective and for­mall ecclesiasticall power, which needeth a fur­ther subdivision to be understood: for they make an objective ecclesiasticall power con­versant about persons and things; and this, they say, belongeth only to the magistrate; and a formall ecclesiasticall power, in which the ma­gistrate hath his share with the ministers: so that of these two ecclesiasticall powers, objective and formall, it will prove that the magistrate hath 3. parts, and the ministers but one: for this ecclesiasticall formall power is again divided by them, into a power exercised ratione objecti objective-way, about things and persons, which kind of power, say they, belongs to the sole ma­gistrate; and into a power exercised in an eccle­siasticall way, which they say is the ministers portion.

Pag. 261. he hath an ecclesiasticall power, [Page 94] which he divides into perfect and imperfect, which he calls pro tanto: of this stamp is this division of ecclesiasticall power into the power of every way, and the power more suo: which distinctions are so subtile, that they are beyond Scotus apprehension. He hath also a division of ecclesiasticall power into imperative and elici­tive; this is proper to ministers, that to magi­strates: and then an ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction properly so called, and another improperly so called. The jurisdiction impro­perly so called he and all his brethren ascribe to the ministers: but the jurisdiction properly so called to the magistrate. Which thing no way agreeth with the division of ecclesiasticall power into perfect and imperfect above-mentioned: for whereas they make the perfect ecclesiasticall power to belong to the ministers, and the im­perfect to the magistrate; here they make the ec­clesiasticall power properly so called to pertain to the magistrate, and the power improperly so called to the ministers: so that, if we believe them, the power properly so called shall be the imperfect power, as on the contrary, the power improperly so called shall be the perfect power; which is against any mans common sense and logick.

By the help of these distinctions, the Popes and their advocates have defended the power of excommunicating and deposing Kings, yea of disposing of their tempora [...]ties, saying, that the [Page 95] Pope hath not a direct power over them, but an indirect; but yet causing to be seized, or seizing directly of their dominions; as Julius the II. the Kingdom of Navarre: per indirectam potesta­tem, & in casu necessitatis in ordine ad spi­ritualia, potest summus pontifex manum im­ponere regnis & imperiis cum plenissima pote­state.

I have not done yet ranking in files the se­verall ecclesiasticall powers. They further di­vide it into elicitive and coercive; into primary and secondary power; into the power managed directly, and ex consequenti; into a power of reforming abuses under the notion of formality of scandall, and a power under the notion of formality of crime. And, to draw to an end of di­viding, they have more divisions of ecclesiasti­call powers, as into directive and coercive; cu­mulative and privative; auxiliary and destru­ctive; declarative and executive; authoritative & constitutive: the auxiliary they derive from Charles the great, capitulari Car. mag. Volumus vos scire voluntatem nostram, quod nos parati sumus vos adjuvare ubicunque necesse est, ut ministerium vestrum adimplere valeatis; we will have you to know, that we are ready to help you in the ministerie. Now of all these divisions of ecclesiasticall powers, the magistrate hath alwayes one half; the ministers sometimes none, except they take for themselves the de­structive and privative powers, which indeed [Page 96] signify just nothing, and are [...]nt [...]arationis; ex­cept also they content themselves with a power and jurisdiction improperly so called, leaving to the magistrate the opposite member of power properly so called, which is a silent confession that they have none at all, since they can yet find no name for it.

I have one division more of ecclesiasticall power, brought by Amyraldus and some others, quite different from the rest, being not a dichotomie, but a trichotomie; not a division in­to two, but three coordinate powers; the one be­longing to the magistrate, the second to lay­elders and deputies of the church, and the third appertaining to ministers. These three ecclesia­sticall powers he maketh to be conspicuous in all ecclesiasticall assemblies and synods: where the magistrate hath his ecclesiasticall indirect extrinsecall power, as they call it, the ministers have their intrin [...]call direct ecclesiasticall power, and the lay-elders have a lesse intrinse­call direct ecclesiasticall power, for it hath not found a name yet; for it is (say they) neither of the nature of ecclesiasticall power belonging to the magistrate, nor of that which is proper to ministers, but a mungrell ecclesiasticall power, in regard they cannot perform by their power those acts that belong either to magistracy or ministery. For besides that they cannot preach and administer the Sacraments, Amyraldus will not allow them any voice, but consultative, [Page 97] not deliberative, and only in matters of disci­pline and ecclesiasticall policy: and that power, they say, they have common with the magi­strate, who over and above hath his ecclesiasti­call power, which neither the ministers nor lay-elders have any thing to do with. Lastly, the ministers have their ecclesiasticall power distinct from the ecclesiasticall power of both.

The bare relating of these divisions of power and modifications of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, is sufficient to confute them; so that there is little need of authority to witnesse their nullity and vanity. Yet three grave and learned di­vines, namely Martyr, Musculus and Gualte­rus, would have the name and the thing to be abolished. Martyr loc. com. 13. class. 4. § 9. sheweth the little need of multiplying powers, whenas that of the magistrate is sufficient; and that David, Salomon, Iosias, being civil magistrates, did think that religion belonged to their care; and Constantinus, Theodosius, Iustinianus, had no greater thought then to constitute the true church of God.

Musculus is yet more pregnant, loc. com. de magistratibus: what hinders, I pray, but that this may be ecclesiasticall, which is done nei­ther by the church it self, nor in the name and by the power of the church, but is done, com­manded and enjoyned by the magistrate within the church, in the name and power of God, and [Page 98] to procure the good of the church, and represse the evils committed in the church? A little lower he hath these expresse and golden words: the way and nature of government cannot bear, that in the same people there be two authentick powers, two diverse legislations and domina­tions, except it be by subordination; as there is no place for two heads in one body.

Gualterus Homil. in 1 Cor. 5. is no lesse ex­presse: They distinguish betwixt ecclesiasticall and politicall jurisdiction: but this distinction is taken out of the shop of the papists, for it is not to be had in the Scripture; for it is plain that the same way must be observed in the New as in the old Testament. And a little lower: The same then must be observed in the new Testament, and no need there is that the mini­sters of the word should have a peculiar senate, taking upon them what belongeth to the magi­strate: they may be censors of manners, such as are needfull in a greater commonwealth, where ordinary magistrates cannot attend all businesses; but these are created by the magi­strates authority, and ought to do all by his command, and not ly a peculiar power of their own, distinct from that of the magistrate. Such passages, and many more, I alledge in my Pa­raenesis p. 16. and 17. No marvell if those that recede from the plainnesse of the Scripture, have knit themselves such nets and windings of powers, in which while they think to be safe [...] they lose themselves.

With the help of those distinctions and divi­sions of power, M. Gillespie stretcheth and shortneth his ecclesiasticall power as a leathern point: sometimes lengthening it so far, as that the magistrate may take hold of it by one end; and sometimes giving both ends and the middle into the hands of the ministers.

I will alledge one or two more places out of Mr. Gillespies book, by which his art will ap­pear in extending and contracting his ecclesia­sticall power; one while making the magistrates and ministers to share the power between them, another while giving to either, all or no­thing.

Pag. 263. speaking of the extent of the eccle­siasticall power of the magistrate, he is usefull, saith he, and helpfull to the Kingdom of Christ the mediatour; magistracy being serviceable to purge the church of scandall, to promote the course of the Gospell, and the edification of one another. But how? not perfectly, but protanto; not every way, but more suo; not intrinsecally, but extrinsecally; not primarily, but secon­darily; not directly, but ex consequent [...]; not sub formalitate scandali, but sub formalitate cri­minis, or not under the notion of scandall, but of crime.

I alledge this not to confute it, having else­where shewed the weaknesse and nullity of such divisions: what a lame and impotent thing is eccle [...]asticall power, that needeth so many [Page 100] woodden legs and crutches? But, I pray, doth not the magistrate punish blasphemy as a scandall, and a contagious offence communicative to others?

Pag. 264. The coercive part, in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the pres­byteriall and synodicall sentence, belongs to the magistrate: not as if the magistrate had no­thing to do but to be an executioner of the plea­sure of church officers, or as if he were by a blind and implicite faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination; God forbid. The magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compell men to do; to judge of it not only judicio apprehensivo, by understanding and apprehending aright what it is, but judicio discretivo, by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion, exa­mining by the word of God the grounds, rea­sons, and warrants of the thing, that he may in faith, and not doubtingly, adde his authority thereto: in which judging he doth judicare, not judicem agere; that is, he is judex suarum actionum, he judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to church-officers, and doth not concur therewith, except he be satisfied in his con­science.

Whoever examineth narrowly the extent of power which he yields to belong to the magi­strate, will soon discover that all the ecclesiasti­call [Page 101] power is to be managed by the magistrate. 1. He maketh all synodicall or presbyterian power to be of no force, without a coercive power: 2. that the magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of the sentence, before he causeth it to be executed: 3. that the magistrate having both the last judgement of approbation, and of that they call imperative, or command, to yield obedience to the declarations and sen­tences of synods or consistories, it is plain, he is the soveraign judge of all ecclesiasticall judge­ments, sentences and debates, and that they are but counsells and advices, till the magi­strate approveth of them, and commandeth them.

This single passage of Mr. Gillespie graunted unto him, might serve for an answer to all his book, & would overthrow all ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction. And indeed all the controversie lieth in the narrow compasse of these few lines of his, the matter of which by right should have been the main subject and bulk of his book, and not have been so slightly passed over: for this is the very hinge, on which Gualterus and Mac­covius conceive that the whole controversie be­twixt Erastus and his opposites hung, and which, as it is stated by Maccovius, will give a bone to pick till doomsday to the assertors of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction; it is a Gordian knot, which they will never disintangle, but by cutting of it, the truth of it being so undeniable, [Page 102] that it was never answered by Walaeus, Apolli­nus, Triglandius, nor by Mr. Gillespie, who in­deed in this paragraph alledgeth the substance of Maccovius positions, but doth not answer them to any purpose.

The three positions of Maccovius are brought by severall in various terms, but all to the same purpose, and are these.

1. It is the duty of the magistrate to look and take order that the word of God be preach­ed with purity, that the Sacraments and the discipline of the church be duely administred, and to make a diligent enquiry into the mini­sters performing of these, and to punish them if either they misse, or do amisse in the d [...]s­charge of their places. Which words of Mac­covius, Rivetus upon the decalogue doth expresse in equivalent terms. It is the duty of ministers to infuse doctrine, to wound by censures, to ad­minister the sacraments immediatly and per­sonally, and, as they speak, ex officio, by their of­fice. Now the magistrate, under whose autho­rity these things are to be done, if ministers do not perform them, by his grave and com­manding power may and ought to force them, and enjo [...]n them to do these things, and to do them well; and to punish them that do other­wise then they should do.

2. The second position of Maccovius is; Since no determinations or sentences of presbyteries and synods have any force of obligation in them [Page 103] to obedience, without the sanction of the magi­strate; therefore not the presbyteries and sy­nods, but the magistrate is the supreme judge, giver and maker of all constitutions, sentences and determinations of consistories and sy­nods.

3. The third is; The magistrate is either to put his seal of sanction, and give his judgement of approbation to all the judgements, sentences and definitions of synods, with a blind judge­ment, and stand, without disputing within him­self, to what they agreed and decreed among themselves; or he must disapprove those things that in his own apprehension are not good and convenient, and approve what he conceiveth to be true, just and fit. Whatever the opposers chose, they are at a stand; for they make the ma­gistrate either a soveraign judge and arbiter over all ecclesiasticall matters, or a sergeant and blind executioner of the judgements and sentences of synods and presbyteries.

Mr. Gillespie being not able any way to make invalide the strength of these positions of Maccovius, only saith, that the magistrate, in having the last view and cognizance of all ec­clesiasticall determinations, and giving his san­ction to them, does not judicem agree, but ju­d [...]care; which I know not how to English, but that in so doing he doth not the part of a judge, and yet doth judge of the thing. But what strength hath this? That man doth the part of a [Page 104] judge, in whose power and breast it is to make valid and currant, or to disannull whatever is debated and determined by others. Of much like strength is it, when he saith, that the magi­strate judgeth whether he ought to adde his civil authority to this or that, which seemeth good to church-officers, and doth not concur therewith, except he be satisfied in his con­science. Which if he may do, the magistrate hath as much as Maccovius proveth to belong to him: for in that he is not satisfied, and doth not concur with the judgements of church­officers, he maketh all their judgements void & null & of no force, to oblige either actively or passively any man or assembly under his juris­diction. Had not the states of the low-countreys approved and ratified the synod of Dordrecht, their decrees would have been but counsells, ad­vices, and answers of prudent and wise men, and had not put any obligation upon the ministers, churches, schools and academies within their dominions, more then upon England or France, to be conformable to their determinations.

Next, in the conclusion, Mr. Gillespie saith, that this doth not make him supreme judge and governour in ecclesiasticall causes, which is the prerogative of Iesus Christ; nor yet doth it invest the magistrate with the subordinate ministeriall forinsecall directive judgement in ecclesiasticall things or causes, which belongeth to an ecclesiasticall, not to a civil court.

I understand not wherefore he bringeth this; for what he hath said before doth sufficiently evince the magistrate to be soveraign judge and governour over all persons, and in all ecclesiasti­call causes and censures, so long as they are of no force, and cannot be brought to execution, except the magistrate approves of them, and commands them. It seemeth Mr. Gillespie, by these words, would put it to the vote, who must be the supreme judge and governour in ecclesia­sticall causes; whether the ministers, or the ma­gistrate. It is sure enough, if we believe him, the magistrate must not be. It remains then that the ministers should be the supreme judges and go­vernors: for all M. Gillespies drift is, to take from the magistrate that which he saith duly pertaineth to the ministers, and in short, to put, as he conceiveth, the saddle upon the right horse. For to what end should he except against the magistrates being invested with the power of su­preme judgement and government in ecclesia­sticall causes, but to reinvest the ministers into it, and to declare, that that usurpation in the magistrate was done to the prejudice and wrong of the ministers, to whom it is due by right?

Here then Mr. Gillespie maketh the ministers of the Gospell supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes; whereas he alwayes before declined those titles, as belonging only to and being the prerogative of Jesus Christ. But suppose [Page 106] ministers in synods and consistories had also the coercive power, and were invested with that ex­ternall jurisdiction, that giveth force and san­ction to all their censures; this, I trow, would not make them more or lesse supreme judges and governors in ecclesiasticall causes, then the ma­gistrate invested with the same power. Since then the magistrate takes no more upon himself, then such an externall jurisdiction as ministers might well assume by the delegation or concession of the magistrate; why should Mr. Gillespie hence inferre, that this power in magistrates maketh not them supreme judges and governors, when­as the same jurisdiction laid upon ministers nei­ther maketh them supreme judges and gover­nors in ecclesiasticall causes? No hurt then to the magistrate by this inference, only that it seemeth to acknowledge, that some do hold the magi­strate to be supreme judge and governour in ec­clesiasticall causes, giving him a prerogative which belongeth only to Jesus Christ. I believe none of his opposites spoke in that crude man­ner. Magistrates are not unerring judges; they fail many times in their judgement, both decla­rative and of discretion: so do the ministers; and therefore there is no supreme visible judge and governour in ecclesiasticalls, to whose deci­sions, determinations and commands a con­science is obliged to yield further then it is in­lightened or convinced: for there being a tribu­nall in every ones conscience, usuall appeals are [Page 107] made to it from the magistrate, yea from the sentences of synods and presbyteries. This is the prerogative of Jesus Christ, by a soveraign judgement and determination to resolve the in­tellect, incline the will, and convince the con­science. The magistrate is not made by any of Mr. Gillespies opposites, as far as I know, other­wise supreme head or governour in ecclesiasti­call causes, then Martyr, Zanchius, Pareus, &c. make him head of the church.

He further saith, that what he stated about the power of the magistrate in ecclesiasticall things, doth not invest him with the subordinate ministe­riall forinsecall judgement in ecclesiasticall things or causes. I think, if Scotus were living, he would hardly understand what is the meaning of ministeriall forinsecall directive judgement; for the word ministeriall is no way forinsecall: for the stile of forinsecall maketh the minister sit in a court of judicature as the judges at West­minister Hall, giving sentence which both par­ties must stand to, except they can appeal, or ex­pect a redresse in a superiour court. Again, the word directive agreeth no better with forinse­call, then the Papall title of servant of ser­vants with God on earth, and the spouse of Christ: for whereas the word forinsecall gi­veth no leave to the plaintiff or defendant to in­terpret the judgement of the court to his own sense or apprehension; on the contrary the word d [...]rective doth it, and giveth those that attend [Page 108] the word, and hearken to the directions of the minister, a priviledge like that which St. Paul yieldeth to the people of Beroea, who having heard St. Paul, would be well satisfied ere they gave credit to him; for they searched the Scrip­tures, to know whether it was so as St. Paul would have them to do, or as he said unto them, and gave them directions.

CHAPTER X.

IT remaineth in the examen of the first section of the 30. chapter of the confession, we should speak a word of the church-officers, in whose hands the Rever. Assembly saith a go­vernment was appointed distinct from the civil magistrate.

God indeed hath appointed in the church, [Page 109] officers distinct from the magistrate; as he hath appointed in the law the magistracy of Moses to be distinct from the Priesthood of Aaron, and the Priests and Levites to have a distinct function from that of the rulers, elders, captains, judges, &c. But God never appointed the juris­diction of Aaron and of the Priests and Levites to be distinct from that of Moses and of the su­preme magistrate; nor ever meant with the di­versity of offices and officers to introduce a diversity and distinction of jurisdictions. For were the jurisdiction exercised by church-offi­cers of so distinct a nature from the magistrates jurisdiction, as the paternall jurisdiction is di­stinct from the maritall, and both from that of the magistrate; one could not thence infer, that they are not all three subordinate to one supe­riour jurisdiction: Coordinate jurisdictions, as of fathers, husbands, masters of families, Majors of towns, are all subordinate to one supreme jurisdiction.

But to prove that church-officers are not ap­pointed by God in a government distinct from that of the magistrate, but in subordination to it, the reverend Assembly make use of one place of Scripture, in their humble advice for govern­ment; which though they quote in the behalf of a double jurisdiction, yet it doth totally over­throw it: their words are;

As there were in the Iewes Church elders of the people joyned with the priests and Le­vites [Page 110] in the government of the church, (as ap­peareth in 2 Chronic. 19. v. 8, 9, 10. &c.) so Christ, who hath instituted a government and governours ecclesiasticall in the church, hath furnished some in his church besides the mini­sters of the word with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto; who are to joyn with the ministers in the government of the church, Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. v. 28. which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders.

One party or other is mightily mistaken, and do wrest the Scripture against the sense of the holy Ghost, so clearly manifested in the literall meaning. I wish with all my heart, that as the reverend Divines and Mr. Gillespie propound to the Christian church, that of the Jewes for an example of jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate; so they would take no other umpire and judge, to make good that double jurisdiction, then this text they have chosen: for I am confident, they will find their condem­nation in it; no place in the Scripture more evi­dently asserting the confusion of jurisdictions amongst the Jewes then this. Me thinks the presbyterians & anti-presbyterians both draw­ing this text to their advantage, are like Salma­sius and the ministers of Leyden, about the question of wearing long or short hair; the ministers making use of the same text 1 Cor. 11. against long hair, that Salmasius doth against [Page 111] short. But the whole context, from the 8 verse to the end of the chapter, is wholly for us.

1. The text saith verse 8. that Iosaphat ap­pointed for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies, Levites, Priests and chiefs of the families of Israel: here then you have first no distinction of judicatories, but rather of the heads either of families, or so called for their wisedome, from all the 12. tribes of Israel, to one Iudicatory or Sanedrim, as the Rabbins & the best interpreters think.

2. In setting them over affairs there is no distin­ction mentioned, as that the Priests & Levites should manage the ecclesiasticall, & the heads of families the civil; for expressely all kinds of de­bates, about matters criminall & not criminall, were to be judged by them jointly. So then the elders of the Jewish church cannot be a fit par­allel with the elders of the church of the new Testament; since the elders under the old Testament were judges even in capitall causes, but under the new they were not: besides that the elders under the old Testament were to make but one councell & one judicatorie with the Commonwealth, with the Judges and Prin­ces of the land; but neither the Rev. Assembly nor M. Gillespie will allow the elders of the new Testament, to have any thing to do to sit as church-officers with the judges of the land, and to decide causes betwixt blood and blood.

3. But the eleventh verse, concerning Ama­riah [Page 112] the chief Priest appointed to be over all mat­ters of the Lord, and Zebadiah for the Kings businesses, doth further clear, that there was no such thing amongst the Jewes, as a government distinct from that of the magistrate; though many cry here [...], as if it were a strong place for a distinct and double jurisdiction: for it is plain here, that Amariah the chief Priest was appointed to be, as Mr. Gillespie confesseth p. 146. the Nasi or Prince of the Sanedrim, and chief ruler of the Senate, whereof mention is made in the 8. verse, and which was made up of Priests, Levites, and the elders of the people of Israel, and judged of such causes and matters as usually a high court of Parliament do. This Amariah, in that place of chief-presidency in the Senate, is said to be over all matters of the Lord; because, as all manner of lawes, consti­tutions and ordinances, were all from God the author and latour, and from Moses under God the giver of them all; so every matter or busi­nesse concerning any of those lawes violated and broken, or that needeth further explanation, by reason of the infinity of cases, and the seeming contradictions between one law and another, was truely and properly called the matter of the Lord, and was debated in the Senate: for no doubt all causes about cere­moniall lawes, and judgements concerning de­grees of marriages, inheritances and such like, were as well matter of the Lord, as the judge­ment [Page 113] of leprosy, sacrifices and the like. In that Senate which debated such matters of the Lord, was Amariah Mr. Speaker. Mr. G [...]spie ac­knowledgeth that he was the ruler and judge of the people, for thus he speaketh p. 140. that the high Priest was a ruler of the people, as well as of the Priests and Levites, is man fest from Act. 23. v. 5. where Paul applyeth to the high Priest that law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Thus M [...]. Gillespie pleadeth for us, with as strong arguments as we could ever produce for our selves: viz. 1. that the jurisdiction of the high Priest, as such, was not distinct from that of the magistrate, neither before nor since Christs time; 2. that his juris­diction was not annexed to the Priestly office, but to the office of a judge and [...]uler of the land; 3. that he judged of the matters of the Lord as judge, ruler and Prince of the Senate, and not as a high Priest; 4. that, there being not two Senates, as Mr. Gillespie acknowledgeth, in Christs time, nor before his time, one eccle­siasticall, another civil; that one S [...]nate that was standing could not properly be called ei­ther ecclesiasticall or civil, [...]ut the magistrates Senate, endowed with one, and that externall, jurisdiction in all causes and matters, and over all persons.

4. Now for Zebadiah, the case is clear, that he was appointed either Steward, or Mr. Controller, it may be chamberlain of the Kings houshold; or [Page 114] rather a principall minister not of State, but set over his familie, lands, armies, moneys, jewels, &c.

5. This alone, that Iehosaphat appointed both Amariah and Zebadiah to be chief magi­strates and rulers, one over the matters of God, the other of the King, evinceth, that all jurisdi­ction was united in the King, depended on him, and was subordinate to him. For it is plain out of Iosephus, lib. 9. cap. 1. that these two magi­strates, Amariah and Zebadiah, and the setting of them over the matter of God and the businesse of the King, was an act of sovereign jurisdi­ction or of magistracy; summos magistratus [...] ex amicorum numero praeposuit.

6. The matter judged in that Sanedrim where Amariah was Speaker, argueth that it was no ecclesiasticall court. Mr. Gillespie understandeth betwixt blood and blood, not of capitall offences, but concerning forbidden degrees of marriages. Which though it were, he must prove that ma­trimoniall causes belonged to the cognizance not of civil, but of ecclesiasticall tribunals; which no man will ever be able to prove.

7. To take away all doubt, but that Amariah was appointed the chief ruler of the people of God under the King, in all matters that con­cerned the lawes given by God to his people, of whatever nature they were, and Zebadiah Go­vernour under the King of the Kings house and affairs; there is a pregnant place 1 Chronic. 26. [Page 115] vers. 30. and 32. For in the 30. verse Hashabiah and his brethren, even one thousand and seven hundred officers on this side Iordan westward, are said to be set over the businesse of the Lord and the service of the King; and [...] the 32. it is said, that David made ruiers over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, for every matter pertaining to God, and the affairs of the King.

First, here we see neither Priests nor Levites, but men of other tribes, set promiscuously over both the matter of the Lord and the affairs of the King.

2. Who seeth not that the matter of God is the matter of the Commonwealth, even all judgements, lawes, constitutions appointed by God, by which the people of God were judged and righted; and that the affairs of the King were those that pertain to the Kings demeasnes, rents, armie? &c.

3. And who seeth not, that all the affairs and all the matters that needed to be ordered and regulated in those places and tribes, are divided into two classes, viz. into the matter of God or the people of God, and the affairs that respected the Kings own businesse and service?

4. What absurdity then would it be to ima­gine, that the affairs of the King were civil busi­nesses, judged and handled by secular men, and the matter of God ecclesiasticall causes, judged by ecclesiasticall men in an ecclesiasticall judi­catory? [Page 116] For (even admitting Mr. Gillespies sense) why should not the affairs of the church be the affairs of the King, since he was set by God, and appointed to reform it? and why should not the affairs of the Commonwealth be the affairs of God?

8. Mr. Gillespie p. 14. is of another mind then he meaneth to be p. 140. whence we have quoted him for us; for in the 14. page he appro­veth, that the reverend and learned assembly of Divines should draw an arg [...]ment for ruling elders out of the 2 Chron. 19. see pag. 15. be­sides, whereas it is the opinion of all Rabbins, and most D [...]vines, that in that place 2 Chronic. 19 there is mention but of one Sanedrim which Iosaphat did [...]form; Mr. Gillespie maintaineth that there is mention made of two; one eccle­siasticall, of which Amariah was president, and anothe [...] civil, in which Ze [...]adiah was Speaker: for, saith he, where was it ever heard of, that a Priest was President of a court, and [...]n sacred things and causes, that a civil magistrate was president of a court, and that in civil causes, and yet not two courts, but one court? But where will he make good that distinction of power and Senat among the Iewes, one eccle­siasticall, the other civil? For 1. he himself doth not deny, but that the great Sanedrim was an intermixture of persons and preceedings: what need then to have a partition of power? 2. He takes for granted, that the high Priest was [Page 117] the president of the great Sanedrim: if he was, no absurdity then he should be president of a civil court, such as they cannot deny the great Saned [...]im was. 3. If he were president of a ci­vil court, and Priests and Levites sate with him in the same court, what need we suppose another court called ecclesiasticall, when the first court might supplie both? 4. But that this was but one court, it is plain by what he saith p. 29. and 33. and so that there is no place for his double jurisdiction and Senate or Saned [...]im, the one ecclesiasticall, over which Amariah was, the other civil, whose speaker was Zebadiah; for in these quoted places he saith, that the government of the Iewes in Christs time was not, as Iose­phus thinks, aristocraticall simply, but was an ecclesiasticall aristocracy, & it was in the hands of the chief priests; that they judged of all cau­ses but only capitall, because the judgement and the cognizance of them was taken from them after the 30. year of Christ; which he proveth p. 33. out of Constantin l'Empereur. 5. So then, by these concessions, as he cannot make a double Sanedrim in Christs time, so neither in Iosa­phats time. 6. What need to call the Sanedrim in Christs time ecclesiasticall, since it had the judgement of all causes and over all persons, as usually the magistrates tribunall hath, except in capitall causes? 7. But could the judgement of capitall causes taken from them make the Sane­drim in Christs time more an ecclesiasticall [Page 118] assembly, then when they had the judgement of the said capitall causes? must a court be called ecclesiastic [...], because it hath no power to pu­nish by death? were it so, all court leets and court-Barons and the court of the Exchequer were ecclesia [...]icall courts, because they have no power to punish a man by death. 8 So then, before the 30. year of Christ, when the Iewes had the judgement of cap [...]all causes, their Sane­drim (if we believe Mr. Gillesp [...]e) was not an ecclesiasticall, but a civil court, and yet it was made up of Priests, Levites, and elders of the people, and judged of all causes and persons: which sheweth how weakly Mr. Gillespie proveth, that there was an ecclesiasticall and a civil Sanedrim in Iosaphats time, whenas he cannot so much as deduce them unto Christs time, nor after Christs time, but by one at a time, stiling that one Sanedrim, as it serves his turn, sometimes civil, sometimes ecclesiasticall; ho­ping by this means to find his ecclesiasticall Sanedrim Matth. 18. to whom our Lord sends the party offended for a redresse, in those words, tell it unto the church.

CHAPTER XI.

MY noble and reverend friend Mr. Caesar Calandrin propoundeth a case, which he hath often desired me, by word of mouth and by letters, to satisfie him in. He is confident that by it a double jurisdiction is made good. I will set it down in his own words.

A murtherer condemned to death, if he be truely penitent, the spirituall court doth ab­solve him; and yet the civil magistrate shall punish him with death, though he be never so penitent: which evidently proveth, that the civil and ecclesiasticall judicature do not enterfear, but are of a quite different na­ture.

Else how can the magistrate punish him as guilty, who is absolved by the Consistory? or how can the Consistory absolve him, whom the magistrate doth condemn? The Consistory by absolving him in the spirituall court, doth not [Page 120] thereby at all opposethe sentence of condemna­tion which the magistrate hath given against him in the civil court. The condemnation in the civil court stands in force, even then when in the spirituall court it is no longer a condemna­tion, but is changed into absolution upon his re­pentance. The magistrate doth not regard re­pentance, because his office doth not extend to the care of souls: the Consistory must ab­solve and comfort the penitent, lest Satan should tempt him to d [...]spair. The magistrate cannot take exceptions, that the Consistory ab­solveth him whom the magistrate hath con­d [...]mned: nor can the Consistory take exception, that the magistrate puts him to death whom the Consistory hath absolved. I adde, for further illustration, if the absolution given by the Con­sistory were upon grounds of his being innocent, or that his crime did not deserve death; this, I confesse, would thwart the sentence of the civil mag strate: but the Consistory meddleth not with the s [...]ntence of the magistrate, nor with his civil punishment, but labours to keep his soul, being penitent, in a right posture, and to strengthen it against temptations. The argu­ment holds as well on the other side.

The magistrate may absolve a man after he hath satisfied for his crime in the civil court, though the same man should stand condemned in the spirituall court. When the sentences are so directly contrary, and yet the judicatures [Page 121] do not enterfear, nor at all meddle nor make one with another, these must be acknowledged courts of a different nature.

The case propounded maketh nothing against me, nor for a jurisdiction (of presbyteries, classes and synods, to depose, excommunicate, and make lawes authoritatively) independent and distinct from the magistrate; which is the hinge of all our controversie.

1. Properly ministers do not absolve or par­don, neither are they otherwise pardoners then saviours; but only upon the demonstrations of repentance, they do declare pardon of sins, and remission either past or to come. For I do not enter into a controversy betwixt Rever. and learned Mr. Baxter (whom I give thanks for his kind usage and civilities) and my self, whe­ther repentance goeth before remission or fol­loweth it: but however, the minister doth no further forgive, then in declaring that God ei­ther hath forgiven sins already, or will forgive them. So that he, neither pardoning nor sealing forgivenesse of sins, can have no judicato­rie or judgement.

2. I never denied the two courts distinctly set down Rom. 13. one is the power of the ma­gistrate, to which we are subject for wrath, the other that to which we are subject for conscience sake. In this latter God hath set up a tribunall, wherein the conscience passeth sentence either of condemnation or of absolution. The sentences [Page 122] passed in these two courts have no conflict; which cannot be said of the sentences passed in presbyteries, which many times are opposed and reversed by the magistrate: but the magi­strates condemning is no hinderance to the con­science from passing a sentence of absolution, either for the fact committed, or for other sins.

3. Neither is the minister a judge whether the condemned person is penitent or no, but the conscience of the man is, which more properly is the judge that absolveth or condemneth: on­ly the minister furnisheth evidences, helping the man to plead guilty or not guilty.

4. The pastor comforting or rowzing up the prisoner, doth discharge the part of a mes­senger, and not the part of a judge in a court: for he is no judge of a man, who leaveth him to the judgement of another, as doth the mini­ster.

5. The nature of a court is, not to condemn upon supposition that the prisoner knoweth himself guilty; but absolutely to condemn that person whom the judge and jury have a parti­cular knowledge to be guilty: and such is the nature of the court of conscience, when it justi­fieth only where it knoweth it self clear, and condemneth where it is conscious of its guilti­nesse. But no pastour hath a particular know­ledge of any persons evidences for heaven, but what he gathereth by outward signes; and so all [Page 123] acts of his, either of absolution or of condem­nation, are meerly upon supposition, and no acts of a judge, and therefore no acts of a court. In short, both a court of magistrates and a court of conscience, in absolving or condemning, know what they do; but the pastor knoweth not, God only knowing it.

6. The action of a pastour absolving is no act of court, but an act of the same nature with the preaching of the Gospell, by which pardon is pronounced to all that truly repent, and lay hold on Christ by faith.

7. The party arraigned in a true court, (such is the court of the magistrate and that of con­science) is dismissed clear or guilty, as the judge of the court shall pronounce: but none can be guilty or not guilty, and stand or fall, as the mi­nister shall verbally pronounce; there being here no concurrence of any act of his, but that of the spirit in the word by his ministery.

8. This arraigned person, who is necessitated to under go the sentence of the magistrate either for absolution or condemnation, hath no such necessity to go to the church or pastour, except he hath personally offended some of them, or oweth them mony: in which case his reconci­liation is no appearance in any court; only a brother or a creditour may pardon him his debt or offence, that is, pray God to forgive him. Here there is no footstep of jurisdiction of either par­ty on the other: but in case the party arraigned [Page 124] seeks to be reconciled to God, none being able to make his peace with God but God himself, nor to declare peace, but the testimony of his conscience; the pastour may help to clear his evidences, and so may any godly gifted bro­ther, and well read in the Scripture; but neither of them properly judgeth him, or maketh his peace, neither is here any jurisdi­ction.

9. The nature of a court is to have power and jurisdiction over those that are unwilling, as Jesus Christ saith to St. Peter. Were it free for a thref to appear or not appear before the court, and go to prison or to the gellows if he listed, such a coure were a name and not a thing: but we pastor [...] in no court that hath power over the prisoner, except he be perswaded to call him, or to admit him, and be convinced by him for if be let the minister alone, the minister [...]th neither power nor court to convene him to.

10. What he saith, that the magistrate can­not take exceptions that the Consistory absol­ [...] whom the magistrate condemneth, as if it would not concerne the magistrate to take an account of the fact of the minister in absolving [...] prisoner, and as if the pastour were not [...]ged to give an account of it to him, may be questioned: for the magistrate is bound to take [...]re that his prisoner make his peace with God before he die, and to use all means towards it; [Page 125] to that end he must appoint ministers; and if they will not be employed about that work, or in case they do it amisse, I say, he may inter­pose his power and authority: and so say most of the Divines, that if the minister do not discharge his place in all its functions and acts, that the magistrate ought to enjoyn him to do it. And thus far the externall acts of the minister, visiting the prisoners and comforting them, are subordinate to the jurisdiction of the magi­strate.

11. What he also saith, that the magistrates of­fice doth not extend to the care of souls, may like­wise be questioned: for the contrary is proved by Scripture, and the authority of most Fathers and Divines. St. Austin against Cresconius lib. 5. cap. 51. saith, that Kings are Gods ministers, not only in things that pertain to humane so­ciety, but also to Divine religion. Rivetus on the decalogue saith, that the [...]esser care of the magistrate is the administration of the Common­wealth [...], but the first and chief care is the go­vernment of the church. How can the magi­strates be nursing fathers, ke [...]ers of both tables, bound to reform, settle and preserve the true religion, and promote the interest of Jesus Christ as magistrates, except they ayme at the saving of souls? But though the office of the ma­gistrate should not extend to the care of souls, yet this doth not conclude a church-judicature distinct from that of the magistrate: for neither [Page 126] doth the magistrate meddle with the physitians office in curing diseases, or look to the health of horses and other cattle: every office hath its severall care, but not its severall jurisdiction.

12. This may be also questioned, that the Consistory is not to meddle with the sentence of the magistrate: for if he cleareth the nocent, and condemneth the innocent, he hath as much to do with him as with the poorest wretch con­demned to die; he must tell him, as John told Herod, it is not lawfull for thee to do that, and cry abomination to him. There is no action of the magistrate, no sentence or judgement of his, wherein there is either right or wrong, but falls within the cognizance and reprehension of the minister.

13. Briefly, in the case propounded, there is not the least footstep of jurisdiction or court, no citing, no witnesses, no plaintiff, no defendant, sentence, condemnation, absolution, sergeant, gaole, executioner, all conditions necessarie in every judicatorie; not so much as one of them is found in the court of Mr. Calandrin. 1. They do not cite the party; they entreat him to come: if he will not come, they have no remedy, they cannot compell him. 2. They have no witnesses, nor evidences of the case, and therefore cannot pronounce sentence. 3. The absolution must be null, when they do not know whether it shall stand. 4. Neither do they know whether God will not absolve whom they condemn. 5. They [Page 127] cannot put their sentence in execution. 6. This can be no court, which the arraigned can dis­misse when he pleaseth.

14. I shall willingly admit two courts, where­of I have spoken largely in my Paraenesis, one called forum externum, the externall court or the court of magistracy, which is to be found in some measure of power in all assemblies and societies of men, as churches, synods, presbyte­ries, families, schools, colledges, corporations, &c. and the other called forum internum, or the court of the conscience. 1. In this God hath set a tribunall, a judge, a witnesse, a plaintiff and defendant. 2. In that all is carried by outward evidences, whether in a synod, presbyterie, or any other court. 3. In that there is an obligation of active or passive obedience to the laws, decrees and ordinances that have the sanction of a law, whether just or unjust. 4. In this obedience is due for conscience sake, and in obedience to God, to lawes, ordinances, and commands, either of God or of men, that are by the judge­ment of approbation & discretion apprehended to be good, just and holy. 5. In this there is a stronger stresse of obligation laid then in that; so that, as we ought rather to obey God then men, a man is obliged notwithstanding all the sanction of the magistrate, to appeal from the court of the magistrate to that of the conscience, and to yield no obedience to any lawes, injun­ctions or commands of magistrates, pastours, [Page 128] synods, presbyteries, churches, till after they have been there reviewed and approved of. There being but these two courts and jurisdictions, in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin, the mi­nister cannot be judge in another mans court or conscience; and in that court I do not con­ceive he would put a greater tye, then the magi­strate doth upon any man, as to bind him not to appeal from his judgement to the court of his own conscience, or at least not to remove the cause & judgement of the ministers court to his own court. Neither is the minister judge in the other court, except by a delegated power from the magistrate, or by an assirmed power of magi­stracy, binding either to active or passive obe­dience; neither from that court, do I think that Mr. Calandrin would bind a man not to appeal to the court of his conscience.

15. To draw to a conclusion; in the case propounded by Mr. Calandrin, we have acts of function, but none otherwise of jurisdiction then in the function of a physitian; whom in relation to his sick patient, either being alone, or sitting in a colledge among his brethren, I might make to exercise a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, and parallel the physitian with the pastor, the patient with the penitent, the colledge of physitians with the consistory, the curing of the patient with the absolving of the penitent, and so make the case propounded in the behalf of ecclesiasticall juris­diction [Page 129] applyable to the medicall jurisdiction, changing only the persons. Yes I might shew, that a parallel being made, the medicall would outvie the ecclesiasticall, as being lesse inconsi­stent with the nature of jurisdiction, and more distinct from that of the magistrate. For 1. the magistrates office extendeth more to the care of souls then to that of bodies: 2. Physitians more properly cure diseases, then ministers pardon sins: 3. Physitians judgements of the nature of diseases are more certain and evident, then the ministers judgements of grace and repentance; and therefore their sentences are more perempto­ry. I might instance in more particulars; at least I could so match both jurisdictions, as to make them alike distinct from that of the ma­gistrate.

Mr. Calandrin in a postscript giveth severall exceptions against what I have said in my Pa­raenesis, of the two courts. He saith, I do not deny that conscience may be called a court im­properly: neither do I say that it hath all the properties of a court of magistracy; but it hath the necessary conditions required in a court: and that name it hath by the common consent of all Divines, Philosophers, school-men, heathens, Papists and Protestants, none doubting of it; whereas many have questioned whether there be any such thing as forum ecclesiasticum; and none of those that admitted such a forum or ecclesiasticall court, but, as they have confessed [Page 130] that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction is improperly so called, so have they thought no lesse of an ec­clesiasticall court.

He also findeth fault with me for saying, that excommunication was no act of ecclesiasticall power, because exercised in the court of man; and saith, Is not preaching as much an act of the externall court as excommunication, when both are done alike with words outwardly? I grant that the preaching of the word is an ex­ternall act, performed by outward moving of the lips, and lifting up the voice; and so all out­ward actions of men, as buying, selling, walk­ing, striking with a hammer, eating, drinking, and the like; which are said to be performed in the court of man, not because they are juridicall acts, but because they are the subject and mat­ter not only of suits and controversies depending on the court of man, but also of lawes and orders made in the same court: as if a man preached not at all, or preached amisse, and erroneously or seditiously, that act of his may create an action in the externall court of man; so may all other actions I have named; as if one sell another mans wares unknown to him, if he walks in an undue place, and time, if he strikes his neigh­bour with a hammer; and so one may make an induction of all actions of men, which other­wise are no forinsecall acts, but are either natu­rall, morall actions, or acts of function, and not of jurisdiction: as in a physitian, to cure [Page 131] the sick, in a sea-man, to set his ship to sail, in a merchant, to vend his wares, and so in a Di­vine, to do the acts of his function; all which are actions performed outwardly in the court of man, albeit they be not forinsecall. And by reason that excommunication is an outward act, it is done in the court of man, as well as buying, selling and walking; and besides it is a forinsecall and juridicall act, binding men to outward obedience, either actively or passive­ly, and of the same nature with other juridicall acts in the courts of men: but such an act preaching of the word is not, binding none to outward obedience, except he be first inwardly convinced, though it may fall out to be the sub­ject and matter handled in a forinsecall court, as well as buying and selling, which are no forinsecall acts, as excommunicating is. Thus Mr. Calandrin sees, 1. that it is very consistent that a thing or action be done in the forum ex­ternum, and yet not be an act or action of that forum; 2. that preaching need not to be an action of that forum, for that it is performed outwardly, as well as excommunication.

It may be (for I have not now my Paraenesis by me) I referred the preaching of the Gospell to the forum internum, or the court of conscience; which I did, not in regard of the outward act, but of the preaching to the heart, and of the o­peration of outward preaching, as believing, loving, trusting, all which are performed in the court of conscience.

This serves for answer to what he saith next, If the key of the word, for all it hath externall acts, may neverthelesse belong to the forum in­ternum, why may not the key of censure as well? since both are alike in relation to the soul and the inward man. The handling of the key of the word, as it is outwardly pronounced, is an act not of jurisdiction, but of function, per­formed in the forum externum; but as it is a preaching to the heart, it is an act performed in the forum internum, or the court of conscience: but the handling of the key of censure is an act of jurisdiction over the outward man, however the inward man be affected, and compelling to an outward obedience; and therefore belongeth not to the forum internum, in which such acts as preaching to the heart, loving, believing, de­nying ones self, are performed.

What he saith, that both the key of the word and of censure have relation to the soul and the inward man, proveth not that excommunication is not an externall act of an externall jurisdi­ction. For an act of outward jurisdiction in the forum externum, may produce a good effect in the forum internum, even in the soul of a man: such effect may excommunicationbring forth, though it be an act of magistracy and outward jurisdiction; so may the laying hold of a malefactour, and the sentence of the magi­strate pass't upon him, be a soveraign remedy for the salvation of his soul, and be neverthelesse [Page 133] an act of magistracy & of the forum externum. In short, there being but two courts conceiva­ble, one externall, the other internall, this of the conscience, the other of magistracy; I know no medium between them two, no more then betwixt command and counsell, and betwixt the power of the word and the power of the sword.

CHAPTER XII.

SInce no religion can stand without a church, and meetings of Christians about Divine worship, and no church without government, and no government without governours, which the Rever. Assembly calls church-officers, and no governours without a commanding power and a rule to govern others by; it will be re­quisite to enquire into four things; 1. the cal­ling of the church-officers; 2. the extent of their power, and of the obedience due to them; [Page 134] 3. whether all church-officers are invested with the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, as the Rever. Assembly seemeth to say; 4. by what rule and discipline they are to go­vern▪ For the calling of ministers, I have han­dled that subject at large in my Paraenesis. I make the calling to be as much of divine autho­rity, as the reverend Ministers of London do in their jus Divinum of the ministery, yea more; holding, that they have no call from men, but from God immediatly; that their mission is from Christ and the Apostles; that all the acts of church-ministers, people, and magistrate about receiving a minister, are not to send him, but to acknowledge Gods call and mission, and pu­blickly to declare their willingnesse and readi­nesse to accept of his ministery among them: for all these following acts are necessarily to be supposed, before a man be acknowledged a Minister of the Gospell, and set apart by God for the great work of saving souls.

1. The acts of his internall calling, or rather his disposition: which are a strong desire and resolution to consecrate his life, time and stu­dies, that he may be a minister of the Gospell; and a persuasion that he is by God thereunto called.

2. The acts which doe make up his externall calling, and by which men acknowledge Gods call, are, 1. an examen (by a competent number of grave, pious and learned ministers) of him [Page 135] that intends to take the ministery upon himself; of his parts, abilities, learning, doctrine; also of his life and conversation; which they must testifie publickly, whereby it may appear to all, that they hold him every way fit to labour in the word and doctrine. 2. The election of a par­ticular church, requiring his pains amongst them, and desiring him to be their ordinary pa­stor and teacher, to administer unto them the ordinances of the word and sacraments.

This act, though it hath much of humane right, and seemeth to depend on mans will and choice; yet in a right-constituted church, and in an assembly of good men met in the name of Christ, there is much of Gods call concurring with the choice made by men. Thus Ezech. 33. at the beginning, God declareth by his Prophet, that whatever watchman the people should chuse, he would repute that choice to be his act, in that he would punish those that should slight the admonitions of the watchman, and did not take them for Gods warnings, and would take an account of the watchman for his failing in the care of mens souls. Which place of Ezechiel doth much confirm what I have said chapt. 2. of the nature of right; where I shewed, that things that are of Divine right may be said also to be of humane right, and things that are of humane right to be also of Divine right. This observation I have from my precious and learned friend Mr. Sadler; and much might a man say upon [Page 136] it, to shew that as in the administration of the church of the Jewes, so in that of the Christians, Divine and humane right, government, lawes, injunctions, commands, go along together, without needing to be parted into two coordi­nate distinct classes of jurisdiction, the one ec­clesiasticall, distinct and independent from the other which they call civil. One may also there­by see, that much labour is lost in asserting the jus Divinum of the ministery, as if it had no­thing of humane right, or as if a call from men were not also a Divine call. For if magistrate and people should chuse themselves a watch­man over their own souls, to divide the word unto them, why should not this act be reputed a Divine choice, and a Divine installing in the call, as well as the choice of the watch-man whereof mention is made in Ezechiel?

3. The third act towards the making up the externall call, is a publick licence to exercise the ministery whereunto he is called by the voice of God, the choice of the people, and the publick testimony of other ministers. This act of giving licence, being an act of jurisdiction, is per­formed under an orthodox magistracy by the magistrate himself; but under an heterodox or heathen magistracy, by the keepers of the con­federate discipline, who supply the place of ma­gistracy.

The 4. act is, a solemn begging of God a blessing by the ministers met in a coetus, pres­bytery, [Page 137] or synod, or otherwise, by prayer and fasting, upon the resolution of the party that is to take the ministery upon him, the choice of the church, and the licence of the magistrate. This action may be performed with laying on of hands; a rite which may be used for decency and ornament, not for necessity, as if the calling was null without it: and so Musculus, Bullin­gerus, Gualterus, Martyr, and Mestrezat, late reverend Pastour at Paris, all tell us.

I know of no ministeriall ordination, but that which is performed this way; and it is much like for the nature of it to Gods making man and wife: to the doing whereof there is no concur­rence of a minister or ministers requisite, but on­ly to begge a blessing upon the man and the woman that intend to joyn themselves in the state of matrimony: in which action the minister contributes no more to the integrity of it, then his grace before dinner doth to make it a meal; though I confesse there is more in the prayer of a minister towards the perfecting of the last act of ministery, then in his prayer before the consum­mation of matrimonie, or before a meal. For I should think any ministers call null before men, that was not first blessed by a solemn prayer, and a consecrating to God both of the ministers and people. I have been induced to believe, that ordination is completed by these 4. acts; be­cause 1. I find it most agreeable with the word; 2. by them the calling is no lesse, if not more [Page 138] of Divine authority, for this way there is as much caution against those that enter into the ministery by the window, and not by the door, as is observed in Sion Colledge. I make not on­ly the ministery to be as much of divine institu­tion as the reverend ministers of London in their jus Divinum of the ministery; but besides, I make the ministers call to be wholly divine, and receiving nothing from or by men; which the reverend ministers do not: for as men do not institute ministery, so neither ministers; it is with them both as with the doctrine of a preacher, which we trye whether it be from God or men, but we give no authority to it. And as besides in ward evidences, by which we discern a divine wisedome in the Scripture, we have some outward marks and testimonies which make it currant to be of divine authority, even among those that do not believe: so may we say of the call of every minister; which neither other ministers nor the people make either to be a call, or a divine call: only by what they see of the man by his life and doctrine, and by those mentioned conditions required in all those that God hath inwardly called, they no way doubt but whom God hath called inward­ly he also will call them outwardly without any act of man, but to render a testimony to Gods call: which testimony is given partly by the party himself, approving himself to all men; partly by other markers, the choice of the [Page 139] church, and the licence of the magistrate. 3. By that methode we answer, without any difficulty, the Papists question, how reformed ministers came by their calling, and what succession they have; which tye of succession is laid upon the presbyterian ordination; which will be easily proved void and null, if the succession hath been never so little interrupted; at which time if we have recourse to Gods immediate call and ne­cessity, as the 31. article of the confession of the reformed churches in France hath, attributing more to the mission of God then to that of men; what inconvenience is it to give the same glory to God at all times, and as well at one as at another; and to hold, that God hath no other succession then that of his providence, that God and the ministery are more magnified, if mini­sters receive their office immediatly from God, then by the hands of men? what need we en­deavour to salve and make up a lineal succes­sion interrupted by this shift of necessity, the which if it gives more glory to God, it may be well converted into a necessity not to be with­out it? For doubtlesse this plea of succession ma­king all ordinations valid, is a rank Romish one, and very strongly asserting, if admitted by us reformed, that there is no visible church but the Roman. For if it be granted to them, that as there is no church without ministery, so no ministery without ordination, and no ordi­nation without lineall succession from the Apo­stles; [Page 140] they will easily prove that succession failing, the ordination hath also failed, and with it the ministery, and so the church; which can never recover a being, without a succession be shewed from the Apostles downward; as the Vestall virgins, when their fire was out, did not kindle it at the fire of men, but of God. 4. It serves to remove an old mistake, that the ministers of the Gospell are successours to the Priests and Levites; whereas they have rather succeeded the Prophets. It is true, the Preists and Levites were also Prophets, as they were keepers of the law, and were to read and expound the Scripture, and in that office I grant the ministers of the Gospell have succeeded them: but in that the propheticall office was not continued in all those that were only prophets by a lineall suc­cession of ordination, but meerly by a succession of the providence of God, who never left him­self without witnesses, Seers and Prophets, whom he raised not by any call of man, but of God; no doubt but now God calleth the ministers, the true Prophets of the new Testament, by the same succession and ordination of providence, not by a creation and installing by man. That the ministers of the Gospell did not succeed the priefthood, it is manifest; for that being rituall & typicall, ended in Jesus Christ, there remaining only the propheticall office common to the prophets both under the old and under the new Testament: to which first (which I note by [Page 141] the way, and it is much materiall to our present purpose, and the main argument of the book) as no jurisdiction was annexed under the admi­nistration of the old Testament, but what they had over the uncircumcised in heart; so neither is it convenient the ministers of the Gospell should have any other.

This being the nature of ministeriall calling, or ordination (if a man will call it so) and no superinduction of character, power, duty, gift or licence being conferred by the ordaining ministers; so neither is there any thing taken a­way by any act of theirs, of deposition or ex­auctoration; only every one withdraweth his feather, protection and countenance: the ma­gistrate withdraweth his licence; the ministers say, they will not hereafter hold him a fellow and partner in the work of the Gospell with them; the people declare their dislike of the man, and professe they will make use no fur­ther of his ministery; which act is no more an act of jurisdiction, then the refusing to take phy­sick is an act of jurisdiction over the physi­tian.

CHAPTER XIII.

NExt we are to consider the nature and extent of the power of the ministers of the Gospell, wholly the same with that the Prophets under the old Testament had; a power not forcing the body, but enlightening the understanding, and convincing the heart, ruling the affections, and bringing them captive to the obedience of the crosse. A power which the new Testament men­tions in a hundred places, either in the same words, or in equivalent terms, and yet never so much as once understandeth by it a presbyterian synodicall or ecclesiasticall power, of deposing, excommunicating, and of making lawes and canons authoritatively; but alwayes meaneth the vertue and efficacy of the spirit of God in the word and ministery, called the power of God Rom. 1. v. 16. 1 Cor. 1. v. 14. and chap. 2. v. 5. and chap. 4. v. 19, 20. Ephes. 3. v. 20. 1 Pet. 1. v. 5. A power by excellency called [Page 143] POWER, 1 Cor. 2. 4. by which we are the sons of God, Joh. 1. v. 12, 13. which no man can withstand, Act. 6. v. 10. by which the eyes are enlightened, and men turned from darknesse to light, Act. 26. v. 18. pricking, burning and affecting the heart with sorrow, hope, joy, Act. 2. v. 7. Luc. 24. v. 32. diving into the secrets of the heart, Hebr. 4. v. 16. where we have a de­scription of the powerfull effects of the words, except by the word we are to understand the word incarnate, before whom all things created are said to be naked. It is a power which is called the power of the resurrection, Philipp. 3. v. 10. also the power and demonstration of the spirit, 1 Cor. 2. v. 4. a power of the wisdome and salvation of God, and opposed to the power of Sathan and darknesse, Act. 26. 18. Col. 1. v. 13. a power described in magnificent terms and mightily emphaticall, 2 Corinth. 10. v. 6. &c. This is the power called otherwise the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, by which the slaves to sin and Satan are loosed, and the despisers of the word by resisting the holy Ghost become more hard and bound.

I know of no other power of binding and loosing, no other keyes of the Kingdom of Hea­ven committed to the church-officers: though pro­perly speaking, the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing, are not committed to ministers as the word is, but as the spirit is in the word; so that it is not [Page 144] the ministers, but the word that bears the keyes; the opening of the heart with those keyes as it is only the work of the spirit, so is it known only to the spirit of God in the heart of man con­vinced and converted, and not to the minister himself, who only apprehendeth his office of being the word-bearer, but is not sensible of its efficacy and workings.

Amyraldus thes. 10. de 5. falso dictis sacra­mentis saith, that the power of binding and loosing did only belong to the Apostles, and that that power consisted in three particulars: 1. that being led by an unerring spirit, what­soever in revealing the mystery of the Gospell they preached, and approved for sound do­ctrine, was to be received with like credit as if it had been delivered by Christ himself, and whatever they said was amiss or false, was like­wise to be taken as if it had been pronounced so in Heaven: & this, saith he, is according to the Hebrew Idiome, to bind and to loose: 2. in inflicting corporall punishments and vexation by Satan upon those that dishonoured Christia­nity: 3. in freeing those that were delivered to Satan upon their repentance, and forgiving their sins. He is yet much more expresse and diffuse upon this subject; but I study brevity, which makes me I do not here insert his own words in Latin; but however he saith enough to undermine the foundation upon which the presbyterians build their excommunication, [Page 145] which hitherto being mainly supported by that power of binding and loosing, and the two chief stayes, namely this place of Matth. 18. of binding and loosing, and that of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. failing, there now remaineth but a poor single crutch to draw along excom­munication, cut out of these words, tell it unto the church.

Mr. Lightfoot, an exceeding learned and re­verend Divine, giveth a very probable exposi­tion of the power of loosing and binding, in his Harmony Matth. 16. which doubtlesse doth car­ry in it more solidity and weight then the vulgar explication given by the Reverend Assembly and others, of the power of censuring, excom­municating and absolving. He saith, that the power of binding and loosing was given only to the Apostles, as far as some part of Moses law was to stand in practise, and some to be laid aside; some things under the law prohibited were now to be permitted, and some things per­mitted to be now prohibited: so that in these words, whatsoever, &c. Christ promiseth to the Apostles such an assistance of his spirit, and gi­veth them such a power, that what they allowed to stand in practise should stand, and what to fall, should fall; in short, what they bound on earth should be bound in heaven. And that ex­position is the more receivable, because the Greek text speaks not of binding or loosing per­sons, but things, saying, not, whomsoever you [Page 146] shall bind, but whatsoever things ye shall bind, &c. that is, whatsoever things ye shall dispense with or oblige unto.

He also on the 1 Cor. 5. parallels this place of binding and loosing to Joh. 20. v. 22. whose sins yea retain, they are retained, &c. and saith, that that power was a peculiar gift to the Apo­stles, when Christ breathed on them, by which they spoke strange tongues, healed diseases, killed and made alive, delivered up to Satan, and bestowed the holy Ghost, or the power to work the same miracles. Which exposition strengtheneth the precedent, which is but a branch and an effect of that miraculous power conferred on the Apostles. For by the same power of miracles, or of binding and loosing, whereby they delivered to Satan, and healed diseases, they also prescribed how far some rites of Moses were dispensable.

We have then three expositions of the words of Christ, whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunica­tion, but contrarily they destroy it: for all these three expositions are sutable to the literall and mysticall meaning, which is absolute and with­out condition; Christ promising to bind and loose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth: whereas those that expound that place of binding and loosing of excom­munication, are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ, telling us, that they [Page 147] must be understood clave non errante, in case there is no errour in him that excommunicates. And therefore Beza against Erastus and some o­thers, fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literall sense, that Gods binding and loosing in heaven should steer according to the binding and loosing on earth by excommunication and absolution, ex­pounds the words of Christ as if he had said, whatsoever shall be bound and loosed in hea­ven shall also be bound and loosed on earth, that is, the minister excommunicating on earth doth but declare what God hath already done in heaven; which is the opinion of some school­men, namely of Dominicus à Soto lib. 4. dist. 14. qu. 1. art. 3. saying, that the words, ego te ligo, I excommunicate thee, are equivalent to these, I declare that God hath already excommuni­cated thee. But I think this exposition is cum­bered with more absurdities then the vulgar. 1. Who knoweth the mind of God? 2. and whether he hath excommunicated from the in­ward or from the outward communion? surely not from the inward, for then excommunica­tion should not be a soul-saving ordinance, as the Rever. Assembly tell us; nor from the out­ward, this being an act of man, not of God; ex­cept one say that the minister outwardly acted, what in his secret counsell he hath decreed: but still the difficulty will be, how the minister is acquainted with Gods secret and not revealed [Page 148] will; and if he be acquainted with it, how can an outward action, in which the pastor may erre, be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God?

But however the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is to be understood, the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church, and of ruling and rulers, and it en­joyneth the faithfull to obey those that rule over them; and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to re­ceive lightly an accusation against an elder. So farre then the word of God alloweth a govern­ment distinct from that of the magistrate, and endoweth the ministers of the Gospell with a power of ruling and governing. But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power, nor of that they call ecclesiasticall, which we have proved to be wholly the same with the magistrates power. This power of the ministers ruling and governing is something like that power that Princes and masters of heathen schools had over their disciples, scholars and auditors, as Plato, Zeno, Aristotle; who had a great power over their minds, but no jurisdi­ction over their bodies, estates and outward li­berties: it is true, they kept them in awe, respect and obedience; but it was a voluntary submis­sion to their precepts, like that of Alexan­der the great to the commands of the Physi­tians.

This being the ministeriall power in a shadow, [Page 149] it is more expressely set down in the Scripture: and no doubt that power is the noblest power and greatest power in the universe, next to that of creating and redeeming the world; a power that the Son of God had and managed in this world: none have such warrant of authority, as to be Ambassadours from Christ; none have such an errand: there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands. But still this mini­steriall power, commands and authority, and the obedience due to them, are not of the nature of the power and obedience observed in churches or magistrates judicatories. For

1. The magistrates and churches judicatories do not only enjoyn the commands of God, but also their own: but the ministers of the Gospells power is only to deliver what they have re­ceived of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. even Moses, Deut. 4. v. 5. acknowledgeth that he taught nothing but what God enjoyned him.

2. Accordingly a member of a church doth not obey the word of his Pastor, but of God, Col. 2. v. 22. Marc. 7. v. 7. 1 John 3. v. 24. & chap. 5. v. 3. When the pastor hath no command of the Lord, as 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. then he delivers his own judgement and counsell; and that coun­sell a church-member hath no command to obey; though he ought to have discretion and condescension enough to follow it, if he concei­veth it tends to mutuall edification. Yet in a church constituted, there being need of a power [Page 150] of magistracy, either delegated or assumed, by a confederate discipline, and a magistrate-like jurisdiction being set up in his congregation, he ought, as every church-member, even when he apprehendeth no tye to obey the pastors com­mand as Gods command, to obey, by an obe­dience either active or passive, the commands of that magistrate which himself hath elected, when by a joint consent they all agreed upon a form of discipline.

3. Church-judicatories, if they make any lawes, decrees, or resolve upon a censure to be inflicted upon a church-member, they require obedience and submission, without arguing or disputing the case, or having the liberty either to yield to them, or to decline them if they list: But the true pastorall power commandeth only understanding, free and wise men, that are able to judge, 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea, who so hearkened to the voice of St. Paul, that ere they obeyed it, they consulted the Scripture, to know whether it were so as he taught them.

4. The ecclesiasticall presbyteriall power, like that of the magistrate, requireth obedience to its lawes, ordinances and decrees, not because they are good, just and equitable, but because it so pleased the law-givers; for a man excommu­nicated never so unjustly is to submit to the vali­dity of the sentence, & not to the equity, which, as our brethren and Mr. Gillespie teach us, [Page 151] is not in the breast of the party judged, but of the judge: But the true ministeriall power re­quireth no obedience to its commands, but of such as are perswaded or convinced of the good­nesse, truth and equity of the law and sentence. The Greek [...] signifieth both to believe, be perswaded, & to obey; which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastorall commands, who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus: for this is the main commandement of Christ; as the next is, that we should love one another. Such commands are not obeyed by the motion of the body, but by that of the heart and affe­ctions. The power of magistracy commandeth the hand to give almes to the poor, but the power of the minister commandeth to give them with a ready mind; one commandeth the gift, the other charity and a disposition sutable to the giver. The magistrate setteth a day of humilia­tion, but the pastor commandeth the setting of the heart apart from the world.

All this serves to answer all the arguments of Mr. Gillespie, drawn from one and twenty places of Scripture, in the belief of his ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction.

The place 1 Tim. 5. v. 19. against an elder, &c. he much urgeth: but the following verse sheweth that in that context there is no men­tion of a church-judicatory, where men are con­vented, witnesses confronted and heard, and a judiciall sentence pronounced. It is the duty [Page 152] of pastors to reprove sin and sinners privately, if the offence be private, and publickly and in an open assembly, if the sin be committed in the face of the church, and to the scandall of all: and yet S. Paul giveth a good caveat, that the pastor of the church should not lightly ayme at and point at any man, specially an elder, and give credit to rumours, but be throughly in­formed. This rebuke is no excommunication, nor a denouncing of church censure, but of the judgements of God.

But were there any such thing in St. Pauls time as a church-judicatory, judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot will tell Mr. Gillespie, that it were no inconveniency to say, that even in St. Pauls time Christian churches being mo­delled after the platform of Jewish synagogues, besides ministery in them, had also magistracy; and that it were neither improbable nor irratio­nall to interpret the place 1 Tim. 5. v. 17. ac­cording to that rule. See him on the 5. of the 1. Cor. in his Harmony. Which being granted, the 19. verse will very well admit the same in­terpretation. But let us take a generall view of all the 21. arguments of Mr. Gillespie.

If it be possible for any man to make something of nothing, Mr. Gillespie hath that art; for he thinks all is fish that comes to his net: like the Papists, who if they do but read of fire, of a pot, of a valley, of a ditch, it is enough for them there to find purgatory. Thus Mr. Gillespie, where [Page 153] he findeth the words reject, rebuke, beware, take heed, flee, note, put away, withdraw, weapon, sword, there he will be sure to have presbyteriall jurisdiction and power of excommunicating. Who would think that Galat. 5. v. 12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you, could serve his turn? and yet he bestows three pages in striking excommunication out of this flint. That noble passage 2 Cor. 10. 4, &c. where the spi­rituall weapons are lively set out, he under­standeth of excommunication p. 292. and in verse 6. and having in readinesse to revenge all disobedience, he findeth ecclesiasticall power and censure, no lesse then that of excommuni­cation. But of all places, I much wonder he can paraphrase 2 Cor. 2. 8. for ecclesiasticall power and excommunication. I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him; that is, as Mr. Gillespie expoundeth p. 290. I be­seech you to shew your judiciall power in ab­solving the incestuous man from the sentence of excommunication. Of the same weight is that proof of ecclesiasticall power and excommuni­cation out of Revel. 2. v. 14. and 20. where he saith, the church of Pergamus is censured for not censuring, that is for not excommunicating the woman Jezebel. Tis a wonder he doth not make the very censuring of the church of Pergamus to be excommunication. Such proofs sometimes fall from the most eminent of them: as when the Rever. Assembly, to prove a government of [Page 154] church-officers distinct from the civil magi­strate, alledgeth in the margin Esaias 9. v. 6, 7. meerly because the word government is there mentioned; for without that, the place that speaketh of Gog and Magog had been as valid an argument for a church-government and for excommunication, as that of Esaias, where it is meerly intended to describe the Godhead of Christ, the assumption of humane nature, and [...] gloriousnesse and strength of his spirituall and mysticall kingdom.

Yet trust I needs say thus much of the reve­rend Assembly, that in grounding the govern­ment of church-officers upon that place of E­saias, they have followed the sense of all their presbyterian brethren; who making two powers of the keyes, one of science, of which Jesus Christ speaks Luc. 11. v. 52. and another of au­thority, under which they comprehend the power of censuring, excommunicating, and making lawes authoritatively; they have no other authority for it then this place of Esaias, and another Apocaly p. 3. 7. where Christ is said to have the key of David, with which as he o­peneth & no man shutteth, so he shutteth & no man openeth: which place, in my opinion, is no stronger a plea for an ecclesiasticall and ex­ternall government placed in the hands of church officers, then the place of Esaias alledged by the Rever. Assembly; for this place, as well as the other, as Beza noteth upon Revel. 3. 7. [Page 155] speaketh of the mysticall Kingdom of Christ that hath no end, of which Luc. 1. v. 32. & 33. but of this power in the hands of church-offi­cers we are to speak in the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER XIV.

IN the third place, we are to take notice that the Rever. Assembly doth not declare, nor Mr. Gillespie, what they mean by church-offi­cers; whether the dispencers of the word and Sacraments only, or with them the lay-elders & deacons: for they invest them promiscuously with the power of the keyes, of binding and loosing, and of remitting and retaining sins, against the opinion of Amyraldus, Walaeus, Apollonius, and most of the presbyterians, who attribute the power of the keyes only to mini­sters ordained; as indeed it doth not belong to any others to preach, and to administer the sa­craments. Therefore one would have expected the assembly should make some distinction both of officers and power. It may be by the word respectively they meant, that a part of the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing [Page 156] doth belong to lay-elders, as far as concerneth governing and censuring; but to the ministers belongeth not only the same portion of power common to lay-elders, but, over and above, the power of preaching, administring the sacra­ments, voting in synods, and determining au­thoritatively of controversies of faith.

But how can they make good by the Scripture, that lay-elders are invested with the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, since this power was bequeathed only to Peter, and with him to all the ministers of the Gospell, as am­bassadors from Christ, to whom God hath com­mitted the word of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. v. 19, 20? Is there any mention in the Scripture of church-officers that have a power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, and yet have not the word of reconciliation committed to them?

I cannot deny but that God sometimes ma­keth use of private men to bind and to loose in severall acts of theirs; as when they convert o­thers, which otherwise is the work of the publick ministery, and when a brother forgiveth hear­tily a brother, and beseecheth God to forgive him, or a wronged party complaineth to God in secret of a notable injurie received openly, for which he cannot have satisfaction by men. And of this kind of binding and loosing by private men may be understood the words Matth. 18. v. 18. as Theophylactus, Erastus and Gualterus expound them. But this private men do not by [Page 157] any duty inherent in their outward calling and office, but by a dispensation of God, whose spi­rit bloweth where it listeth, employing the mi­nistery of a weak simple woman or artificer, ei­ther to confound or convert the great and wise ones of the world; sometimes binding and loosing without any intervention of private mens prayers and complaints, but only at the sight of some great oppression sustained, even when the party oppressed is taken away, or of blood shed, which as it doth cry to hea­ven, so may it be said to bind in heaven.

Therefore ministers being by vertue of their office and calling to bind and to loose, I do not understand how any other persons, as lay-elders and members of presbyteries and synods, should have an ordinary power to bind and to loose, and have the keyes of heaven committed to them, and yet not be entrusted with the word of reconciliation, and with the preaching of the Gospell. Hath the Lord Jesus Christ given a commission by halves, so as that some church-officers shall have a power of binding and loosing (for the Rever. Assembly ascribeth to all church-officers indifferently that power) who are not to have the power of preaching and of administring the sacraments?

I further acknowledge, that the church hath had from the time of the Apostles helps of go­vernment, of which Ambrose speaketh, and such as the Jewish synagogues had; but that they [Page 158] had one part of the power of the keyes (which they will have to be the government) & had not the other part (which is of preaching the Gospell and converting men to Christ) I read no where, neither in Scripture nor in antiquity: for as the power of the keyes cannot be severed from the power of binding and loosing, so neither of these two qualifications will admit a division; as that lay-elders should have but a share in the handling of the keyes, and ministers should have them entirely.

Whosoever readeth the outlandish divines, all presbyterians, will find, that they ascribe no power of the keyes to other church-officers then ministers of the Gospell; that what power other officers, as lay-elders, have, is meerly by con­cession of the pastors, and, as Maresius saith, by communication. Loco 15. §. 75. these be his words: sic residet penes senatum ecclesiasti­cum omnis jurisdictio ecclesiastica, ut illa proprie sit radicaliter in pastoribus, in seniori­bus vero qui illis assident communicative. So Capellus, the sium parte priore, dividing the church-officers, thes. 32. gives the whole power of the keyes and of excommunicating to the pastors, not the rectors. Pastores habent po­testatem docendi, arguendi & increpandi, &, si opus sit, à sacris arcendi atque submovendi, quod excommunicare dicitur. So that they do but claw the other church-officers with the key of discipline, which, as Maresius speaketh, is ra­dically [Page 159] in the pastors: and to that purpose speaketh a great Divine, whom I alledge Parae­nes. p. 600. when lay-men sit in councills, and there deliver their opinions as judges, about articles of faith and the use of the keyes, this is done more by the concession of pastors, then by any right or ancient custome.

Here by the way it is observable, that as the power of binding and loosing and the power of the keyes are convertible and equivalent terms in a proposition, so one of them is not more di­visible then the other. Now sure it is, there can be no such thing as a lesse measure of power of the keyes committed to lay-elders, and a greater to ministers: for this power of the keyes being a power of introducing men into the church, either visible or invisible, specially that power by which God opens the hearts of men by the preaching of the Gospell; it cannot be con­ceived that it ought to be or is performed by halves, as that the lay-elders should have one half of that power committed to them, and that Jesus Christ had given them the keyes of hea­ven, but not the main operation of the keyes; as if one should give the keeping of his keyes to his steward, but not the power to open the doors with them. Since then it is not likely that the Lord Jesus Christ hath committed the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven by halves, the like also must be thought of the power of binding & loosing, which are by all divines taken for one and the same.

It is the opinion both of the rever. dissenting brethren, and of the Rever. Assembly, (in a book called reasons of the dissenting, &c. p. 6. and 58.) that both keyes are given together, and not one without the other; though, as the Rever. As­sembly saith, one may be abler to exercise one then the other: which sheweth that no church-officer can (albeit abler to rule then to preach) be endowed with a power of ruling without the power of preaching. But the Rever. Assembly saith, both keyes are given together, but neither to be exercised without a call, and sometimes one may be called to exercise the one and not the other. It is not possible for me to apprehend what weight this hath: for since they acknow­ledge that no church-officer doth receive one key without the other, it is not possible he can be called to the handling of one key only, ex­cept they will say he is called to keep the other key idle, hung by his side.

It being thus made evident, that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing are com­mitted solely to the ministers of the Gospell, who are entrusted with the word of reconciliation; it is likewise of necessary consequence, if there be any such thing as a power of excommunication and inflicting church-censures, as a consequent of binding and loosing, that this said power should appertain to the ministers of the Gospell only, and that neither lay-elders, deacons nor members of churches, be enabled to excommuni­cate [Page 161] by any warrant of binding and loosing from Christ.

None of these things being, as I hope, denia­ble, and the power of excommunication being thus restrained to the ministers of the Gospell alone; if it be made good that excommunica­tion is no law of Christ, it will follow necessa­rily, either that excommunication is not an act of the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, committed to the ministers of the Gospell, or that their power is none of the power of the keyes, but exorbitant, transcending the li­mits set by Christ, and bringing forth acts which are none of Christs.

CHAPTER XV.

THe fourth and the last thing to enquire into in this 30. chapter of the Confession of the Rever. Assembly is, the rule and modell that church-officers are to govern by: which were it granted to be expressely set down in the Scri­pture, would be no stronger an argument for a [Page 162] government placed in church-officers distinct from the magistrate under the new Testament, then it was under the old, when there was a very exact form of church-government, and yet no way distinct from that of the magistrate. Which makes me much wonder, that in that church, loaden with such an infinite multitude of rites, ceremonies, constitutions, lawes, whereof the Christian church is wholly freed, there was no distinction of government and jurisdiction from that of the magistrate; and yet that there should be such a distinction of jurisdiction in the Chri­stian church, which hath no modell nor scheme of discipline, as the Jewish church had, but such as in prudence is assumed by the joint consent of pastor and people. That there was no plat­form of government given to church-officers by Jesus Christ or the Apostles, may be proved by a cloud of witnesses: I will content my self with a few. Camero in his book of the church p. 369. saith, that the Christian church hath no need of certain lawes, seeing it is made up of men of ripe years, not of children under peda­gogy: and a little lower, non est ecclesia certis circumstantiis alligata, the church is not tyed to certain circumstances. The like saith his scholar and great admirer Amyraldus, namely in his Synopsis Salmuriensis cap. 30. of the ec­clesiasticall power §. 4, 5, & 6. So speaketh Capellus in his Thes. Theol. parte priore de po­testate & regimine ecclesiae thes. 40. where [Page 163] we have these words: in tantum valet ecclesia constitutio & definitio, quantum est ratione subnixa; The constitution and definition of the church is so far valid, as it is grounded upon reason: therefore not upon the Scripture. Much more large and as expresse he is in the third part of Thes. Salmurienses, de vario ec­clesiae regimine, thes. 16. and 17. So is Mestre­zat no lesse expresse in his book of the church, lib. 3. cap. 12. God hath defined nothing in the externall order and polity about the worship of God, but only hath prescribed that all things should be done decently and orderly. But were there any platform of government, judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot, the most able and unpartiall judge in this matter, will tell us (Harmon. on the 1 Cor. 5.) that it was accord­ing to that of the Jewish synagogues, which yet was assumed by a voluntary and prudentiall choice, not upon any speciall command from Christ or his Apostles. Which notion of his, which was also mine before we could or had conferred one anothers notes, doth lead us into many considerations.

1. It doth decide the argument of the prece­dent chapter, proving that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is committed not to all church-officers indifferently, but to the ministers of the Gospell only. For if it be reasonable, as the Rever. Assembly saith in their humble advice to the Parliament, and as we [Page 164] have examined before, that the Christian church should have their elders as well as that of the Iews, it is alike reasonable, as Mr. Lightfoot saith, that the nature and extent of both jurisdictions and powers should be the same; and that, if the el­ders among the Jewes did not act in syna­gogues as men invested with the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, but with the power of magistracy, the like should be con­ceived of the elders of the new Testament. That the elders of the church of the Jewes had power of magistracy, it is evident by their acts, as fining, imprisoning, casting out, whipping, and the like; and in that the elders of the new Te­stament are most unlike those of the old: and therefore the Jewish elders could be no presi­dent to the Christian elders: not de facto, be­cause these never exercise that power; nor de jure, for the Rever. Assembly will acknow­ledge that the elders of the old Testament had a right to those acts of magistracy which they performed in their synagogues, but will deny that now the Christian elders have such a right: although for my part I know no inconvenience to assert that the elders in both times had alike right to all mentioned acts of magistracy, though for some reasons it is not found so expedient un­der the Gospell by the presbyterian churches.

2. We may well conceive, that if the act of putting out of the church was an act of magistra­cy under the old Testament, there is no reason it should be now otherwise.

3. That likewise if the church of the Jewes never knew nor exercised in their synagogues a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, neither now are the Christian synagogues or churches to know, or exercise such a distinct power.

4. But strange it is that, since God giving such very exact lawes as he did to the church of the Jewes, yet he gave not to that church a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, it should now be quite otherwise; and that God that gave no expresse lawes, discipline or rule for the government of the Christian church, yet should invest them with a power distinct from that of the magistrate.

5. It seems altogether incongruous that that power and jurisdiction, as is the ecclesiasticall, which mainly is conversant about lawes, consti­tutions and rules which are instituted and rati­fied by men, and do not oblige either actively or passively, but as they are commanded by men, I say, it is altogether unreasonable, that such a jurisdiction should not be placed in the magi­strate; he being the fountain and spring from whom all humane jurisdictions, lawes and con­stitutions do flow. And it is so much the more absurd and unreasonable that constitutions, de­crees, canons, discipline, meerly of humane in­stitution, should be ordered and commanded by a power and jurisdiction meerly Divine, and distinct from that of the magistrate; when as [Page 166] all constitutions, lawes and ordinances given to the Jewes, and all being of Divine institu­tion, were notwithstanding ordered and com­manded by the magistrate, & not by the keepers of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civil.

CHAPTER XVI.

HAving examined what plea the Rever. As­sembly can have in the 30. chapter of their confession for a government distinct from that of the magistrate, the 31. chapter, which is of synods and councells, is more superficially to be handled: for what we have said before of the jurisdiction of churches, plainly sheweth that the jurisdiction of synods is no otherwise di­stinct from that of the magistrate; for since synods must be made up of church-officers, it is not possible they should impart to synods what they have not in churches, and that those that have not a jurisdiction in churches distinct from that of the magistrate, should delegate to them­selves a power which they never had.

I admit willingly the necessity of synods, as the first section doth: synods being necessary whether magistrates be orthodox or not, 1. for preserving and restoring truth, 2. for uniting churches in one judgement, 3. for keeping an externall communion of Saints. And it were to be wished, as the magistrate of England hath set up again the Lords house, so they would re-esta­blish a house of convocation, or an assembly of ministers meeting at the same time that the Par­liament sits, treating such questions in matters of religion as should be propounded to them by the Parliament, or they themselves should peti­tion the Parliament to be handled; not being invested with more judiciall power then a com­pany [Page 168] of merchants or sea-men, called by the Parliament to give their advice about trade and navigation; in which convocation the major part of votes should not be so much regarded by the Parliament, as the weight of their opinions and reasons: and therefore, as it was in the last assembly, where 20. did not prevail against one dissenting brother; so this convocation should return to the Parliament, not the result of the whole assembly, because carried by the ma­jor part of the members, but the names of parties assenting and dissenting.

This convocation I humbly conceive ought to be made up only of ministers of the Gospell, that have wholly set apart themselves for the work of the ministery and study of Divinity. For as the supreme magistrate usually calls men of that calling and profession about which he is to make lawes, as being the most fit to give coun­sell in the thing they are called for; so doubt­lesse none are so fit to be advised with in mat­ters concerning religion, as those that are most learned and versed in it: for I hold them not only the fitter members in an assembly con­vened to treat of matters concerning religion, but also not unfit, yea as fit as any other men, to sit and vote in Parliaments. For this opinion of a double jurisdiction, ecclesiasticall and civil, that lay-men must be judges in civil courts, and ministers in ecclesiasticall assemblies, as it hath barred lay-men from sitting, at least from voting [Page 169] in synods and councels, so hath it removed clergy-men from sitting and being judges in ci­vil courts and Parliaments: which opinion hath out-gone the Papists in some things; for though they do not permit lay-men to have votes, yea hardly to sit in synods, yet do the popish ma­gistrates admit ecclesiasticall men in their courts and judicatories: thus lately Bishops in England sate in Parliament. I confesse that Popes, to advance the building of their empire within the empires of magistrates, Kings and Emperours, would be sure to have an oare in every boat, yea more, for though they have members of their own in civil courts, yet they permit no members of civil courts to sit and vote in synods and councels. But some Protestant magistrates in reforming popery, as they have not so much relinquisht and parted with their own right as popish magistrates, to loose their right in calling and voting in synods, so have they more wronged the clergy, debarring them from sitting and voting in their courts; which I humbly conceive to be a losse to the magi­strate, and a wrong and injury done to the mi­nisters: and thereupon I propound these consi­derations.

1. Debarting of the ministers from sitting and voting in Parliament hath occasioned and con­firmed mens minds, specially of ministers, in that opinion, that there is such a thing in Scri­pture and reason as a government in the hands [Page 170] of church-officers distinct from that of the ma­gistrate, and that there is a double jurisdiction, & two judicatories, one civil, whereof the magi­strates and laity are members and judges, and another ecclesiasticall, in which ministers only must sit and vote: for ministers think it but rea­sonable, that since they are kept off by the laity from being members in Parliament and in all civil judicatories, so likewise the magistrate and the laity should not be admitted to sit and vote in synods: whereas it being certain, that there is no ground in Scripture or reason for a double jurisdiction, & a government distinct from that of the magistrate, and all judiciall proceedings in whatsoever court, assembly, Parliament, synods, presbyteries, being acts of the magi­strates jurisdiction, the minister now consi­dered as as member of a Christian common­wealth, ought to enjoy the same priviledge as the other members of it. All which make me con­ceive, that it was more heat then reason that made so many write against the Bishops voting in Parliament; besides it was no good work to divide jurisdictions, which by the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament, like other ranks of men, were re-united.

2. There being in a Parliament men of all sorts and ranks, gentlemen, lawyers, physitians, apothecaries, merchants, and they all having an equall interest to maintain religion, lands, li­berty, lawes, wife and children of their own; it [Page 171] is altogether unreasonable, that ministers, that are alike concerned in all these, and are as well members of the Commonwealth as the best of them, should notwithstanding as it were be cul­led out from having that priviledge that others of their fellow-citizens enjoy.

3. It is known that men do not sit and vote in Parliament as merchants, physitians, silk-men or drapers, and that if there be new lawes to make, or old to alter, suppose about some manu­facture, as cloth-working, a member of Parlia­ment being professour of that craft which is in agitation, is the most able to discourse upon that subject, and to state how the thing may be regulated; and this he doth as a professour of the craft about which the law is to be made: but when the thing debated is to be carried by vote, & receive the stamp of law, & of publick autho­rity, then, I say, none of the members give their votes as professours of the art and science which they exercise in the Commonwealth, and which is debated in Parliament, no not if a member were a chief justice of England; but all sit and vote as men invested with power of legislation, and at that time a physitian voteth not in the quality and capacity of a physitian, no not when lawes are made for physitians and apo­thecaries, although when they are in debate, a physitian may discourse pertinently of phy­sick, as a physitian and skilfull in his art. This is the very case of ministers of the Gospell, who [Page 172] for that reason, that men do not sit and vote in Parliament considered as men of such a calling or profession in the Commonwealth, ought likewise to vote & sit in Parliament: for as the profession of physick or manufacture doth not devest a man from being a good and under­standing Commonwealths-man, so neither doth the pastorall calling.

4. It seems to me very unreasonable, yea un­conscionable, that any mans profession or ha­bit, how high or low soever, should lay an inca­pacity upon the person of one, though never so much capable and sufficient, to contribute his wit and counsell towards the common-weal; as if the magistrate would not take a loan of money of 100000 l. of one that had a long cloak, but would be willing to take it of one that had a short cloak; or a man in danger of drowning would not take his neighbour by the cloak or by his hair, for fear of spoiling or disordering of them: for thus do those which will not admit the advice of a minister in publick deliberations, were he never so able to serve the Common­wealth by his wit, wisedome and industrie, and the need never so great, meerly because of his habit, and his profession of the ministery. Which calling I am so far from thinking that it doth disinable him from sitting and voting in Parlia­ment, that not only it renders him the fitter, but also that he is not thereby hindred from attem­pting any noble action which might turn to [Page 173] some great publick benefit. A minister having the valour of Caesar, & ability to subdue Rome, or a secret to burn all the ships of the King of Spain in his ports, I conceive that his ministery ought not to keep him off from being employed to use all his industry to serve the Church of God or his countrey in such a way. But why is not a physitian disinabled by his profession to sit in Parliament, and a Divine is? whenas there is a great deal more affinity betwixt the profession of a Divine and the debates in Parliament, then betwixt them and the profession of phy­sick.

5. Although men do not usually fit and vote in Parliament by the right of the calling and profession they are of in the Commonwealth, except they sit by their birth; yet it were to be wisht that men that are generally more skilled in most professions, and best able to judge what is right or wrong, and are not ignorant of af­fairs of the world, should be called: such as I conceive are university-men, and ministers of the Gospell.

6. Since the greatest end of magistracy is to advance the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus, and that for obtaining of that end it is needfull to make lawes and constitutions subservient to it, why should ministers of all men be left out, whose education and profession renders them more capable to advise for the obtaining of that great end?

7. Since also there is such a complication be­twixt the church & state, as they cannot so much as be imagined asunder, and that most lawes and constitutions made by men are grounded upon (and have some warrant from) Divine writ, and that those that appoint by law oaths to be taken, should at least be well advised about the nature of the oath; I do conceive, that since all ranks are promiscuously called to advise about these, of all men ministers, best furnished and stored with knowledge, and acquainted with the right and plea of conscience, upon which equity, right and law is grounded, should not be forgot. Why should not men, who make it their whole employment to study the judge­ments of God, be as fit judges in Parliaments and high courts of judicature, as Physitians or merchants.

8. There is the same reason for ministers to sit in Parliament, as there was for priests and Levites to sit in synagogues and judiciall assem­blies of the Jewes, and in all consultations of state; it being certain that the great Sanedrim was a mixture of Priests and Levites with the Princes and heads of the people.

9. There is equall reason, that if the supreme magistrate calls say-men to sit and vote in sy­nods, he should call the clergy to sit and vote in Parliament.

10. There was no such thing so much as heard for many hundred years after the fourth age, that [Page 175] ministers and Bishops should be thought inca­pable to sit and vote in the supreme courts of the nation. I could prove it by the practise of Italy, Germanie, France, Spain and England, for above 7 or 8 hundred years, even far within popery; that though the Pope had much ad­vanced the hatching of his two egges, ecclesiasti­call & civil jurisdiction, yet all state-assemblies were not distinguisht either from synods, or from civil courts, but promiscuously men of all ranks and professions, Senators, Bishops, Lords, Priests, Gentlemen, did sit and vote in one as­sembly and place, about any matter whatsoever, rite, law, discipline or ceremony. Neither is it to be conceived, that the causes debated in these assemblies were divided into two classes, and that when ecclesiasticall matters were handled, clergy-men did then vote, and lay-men sate mute; and when civil were in agitation, then the clergy were silent, and lay-men did only appear as judges: which is indeed a pretty con­ceit, but will not serve for a double jurisdiction. He that will see that further proved at large, needs but only read Blondellus de jure plebis: &c. and Mr. Prinne in his book of Truth trium­phing over falshood.

A thing very considerable it is, that during all these ages clergy-men, because they were most skill'd in controversies of d [...]vinity, & exer­cised to speak in publick, were also thought the fitter to judge right from wrong, and to meddle [Page 176] with secular matters; and therefore in courts of law or chancery, clergy-men dispatched more businesses then the laity, handled all cases, ex­cept (it may be) criminall matters and wills, not being permitted to be executors of Testaments; otherwise they filled the courts so far, that there were no knowing men, yea none that could read or write but they: hence to this day no court, Justice of peace or lawyer, but hath his clerk, and they say still, legit ut clericus, he reads like a clerk. This I find much urged by a famous lawyer, a Romanist, John du Tillet, in his memoires, who speaking of the encroachments of the Popes of Rome, saith that they have al­wayes endeavoured to sever what from the times of the Apostles was united, and to make of one jurisdiction two; which yet they could not so distinctly separate, but that still to our dayes one may see it was not so in the begin­ning: and this old form, saith he, hath remained to the having, even in our dayes, a medley of clergy and laity in our courts of Parliament.

But I foresee that some of the presbyterian bre­thren will take me at advantage, for saying that ministers may vote in synods, and there being invested with judiciall authority, make canons, lawes and constitutions, which bind churches to obedience: for if they may have that judiciall power in Parliaments, which doth oblige all men and societies, and so churches, to obedience; why may not they have the same right & power in synods?

I hope the rever. brethren will not so require me for my pains in being their advocate, re­torting my plea made in their behalf against my self. But I willingly grant, that the ministers of the Gospell have alike power of sitting and vo­ting in synods, and in supreme courts of the ma­gistrate: but how? viz. if they be called to it by the magistrate; and so their acts, whether they sit in synods or Parliaments, are a produ­ction of the magistrates jurisdiction delegated to them; and as such they oblige all men, socie­ties and churches. Besides, as I said, ministers sitting in Parliaments and synods do discourse and debate matters touching doctrine & church-discipline, as ministers of the Gospell; but they reduce what they discoursed of into lawes, and stamp their authority and sanction upon it, as men invested with judiciall authority from the magistrate: just as I said of physitians, who vote in Parliaments not as such, but as judges of the land.

Against the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament it may be objected, that thereby they would be kept off from the main care they are to attend, which is over souls, and from the preaching of the Gospell. I answer 1. that their particular calling, which is to be ministers of the Gospell, ought not to keep them off from a mo­derate taking care and looking over things that are of lesse concernment, as that of familie, land, estate, suits in law, much lesse to mind [Page 178] the generall good of the nation, in which reli­gion and peace are mainly concerned. 2. There being two branches of the power of the magi­strate, one of legislation, the other of jurisdicti­on; this latter power is exercised by judges, Mayors, Sheriffs, Sergeants and the like: This power as men that have otherwise a constant profession which taketh them wholly up, as phy­sitians, souldiers, marine [...]s, and the like, cannot well manage, so neither ministers of the Gospell: but for the power of legislation, the managing of which doth not take a man up so much, there is no doubt but that as a physitian may take it upon him, so also may a minister. For the making of a law is like the making of a coach, which being made in few dayes, will be many years a­driving by the coach-man, before there be need of a new one: so in a well-constituted state, a good law, which requireth but a little time to make it, will continue many hundred years. A minister may be well dispensed with for a little intermission of his ordinary calling, to contribute his counsell to the making a law, which may be of very good use a long time; though there be no need he should busie himself further, like a coach-driver, to see by a power▪ [...] jurisdiction, the law to take right course, and be well obeyed. I believe if in the first Parliament of Queen E­lizabeth, that drove away popery and settled the Protestant religion, many of the godly ministers that suffered persecution in Queen Maries days [Page 179] had been sitting and voting in Parliament, the then-reformation would have been much more compleat. 3. Some ministers may be found, whose parts lye lesse for preaching, and more for government, and who have wise politick heads: why may not such be fit members in Par­liament? 4. As there is no reason to deprive a man of his right, because he cannot alwayes at­tend to make use of it: so must not a minister be devested of his right to sit in Parliament, because it may be he cannot alwayes attend it. A physitian would be loth, because of his great pra­ctise, to be made incapable to sit in Parliament; so would a Divine, however much taken up with the work of his ministery.

The premisses considered, I conceive that the Rever. Assembly doth part with its own right, when they say in the last section of the third chapter, that synods and councells are to con­clude nothing but what is ecclesiasticall, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, un­lesse by way of humble petition in cases extra­ordinary, or by way of advice, for satisfaction of consciences, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. By which as they seem to keep off magistrates and lay-men from sitting and voting in synods, so they bar themselves from sitting and voting in Parliament.

But if such assemblies as were the great Sane­drim, the synagogues of the Jewes, the con­ventions that I have mentioned for 7. or 8. hun­dred [Page 180] years in Christian states, the politick ecclesiasticall Senates among the Helvetians, and that which was settled in the first reforma­tion by the Prince Palatine of the Rhene; if, I say, such assemblies, in which there is a mixture of men and causes, are lawfull, as indeed it were very fit there should be no assemblies of pu­blick concernment but of this nature; why may not in these assemblies lay-men conclude in ec­clesiasticall matters, and ministers in civil? If they may not, or it must be with distinction and caution, how shall the conscience of a man sit­ting in those assemblies, if he be a lay-man, be resolved, when he may intermeddle while eccle­siasticall matters are debated; and likewise if civil things be in agitation, how far a minister sitting in the same company may interpose & vote? must, when civil affairs are handled, the ecclesiasticall persons first be required to vote, or must they petition to have that liberty? It may be they mean, that when the assemblie is upon ecclesiasticall affairs, that then the laity should likewise petition the clergy for a liberty of voting and intermeddling.

But suppose a member of this assembly be both a States-man and an elder of a church, and there­fore an ecclesiasticall man, must he change his name and personage as the nature of the matter handled requireth, professing not to interpose in such a businesse in the capacity of a church-officer, but as a member of the Commonwealth?

And how shall the conscience of a man be re­solved what is an ecclesiasticall affair, what a ci­vil, that he may not doubt when he may vote and intermeddle, when he must sit mute and si­lent, or go out of the assembly? For the casuists have not yet determined what is ecclesiasticall, what civil: for some of them make the discipline of the church of humane constitution, and there­fore to be ordered, directed and commanded by the same power that giveth sanction to all hu­mane lawes. And if it be put to the question, when, how often, in what place synods are to be convened, what time they must sit, & what matter they must handle, may not the lay-man then interpose as in a businesse of his classis? may not also ecclesiasticall persons do the like? Besides, 100. constitutions may be found of such a mixt nature, that it is not yet resolved what classis they pertain unto, whether ecclesia­sticall or civil: such are the lawes about wills, marriages, tithes, tenths, usury, collections for the poor, appointing of dayes for fasting or thanksgiving, lawes for pious uses, and the like.

Will this expedient serve to resolve the con­science, viz. if such an assembly of mixt per­sons and causes be named neither a councell or synod, nor a civil judicatory, but an assembly, or some other name participating of the nature of both? as if names could alter the nature of the thing, and satisfy the conscience.

In short, I believe the reverend assembly both wrong themselves, and no way satisfy mens minds and consciences, in not stating what is ecclesiasticall, what is not, and how far this or that man may meddle in ecclesiasticall and ci­vil matters, what name is to be given to this or that assembly.

I am crowded with matter that were worth deciding about synods; which argument I han­dled largely in the 22. and 23. chapters of my Paraenesis. The power of synods is decisive, di­rective and declarative: they decide by way of discussion and disputation; they direct by way of counsell; and they declare their opinions as expert and well known and read in the thing that is in question. Coercive and judiciall power they have none, but what is delegated from the magistrate or from private churches: so that though the authority of a synod is greater then that of a private church, yet the power of that church is greater then that of a synod.

If there be an union of churches, as there ought to be even under an orthodox magistrate, all ca­nons and decrees are no otherwise binding as laws, then as they have the stamp of magistracy upon them: Supremi magistratus approbatio est supremum arrestum, ut loquuntur, saith Festus Hommius disp. 18. thes. 4; and disp. 17. thes. 3. the approbation of the magistrate is the supreme decree. And not only reformers, but also some Romanists, namely the authour of the [Page 183] Review of the councill of Trent, a learned book, and which the learned Dr. Langbane thought his pains worthy in his youth to turn into En­glish. Lib. 3. cap. 13. the Emperour, as is com­monly known, the Monarch of churches, is pre­sident to the synodall sentences, gives them force, composeth ecclesiasticall orders, giveth law, life and policy to those that serve at the altar. Is it credible, that a Romanist should be of a more sincere judgement in this matter then a reformed Christian, such as Mr. Gillespie?

Those that are for a judiciall power of synods over churches do alledge the synod of the Apo­stles; which being infallible, is no example to us, no more then the miracles of Christ and the Apostles argue that ordinary ministers must work miracles. When private churches can be sure that a synod in these dayes is led by such a spirit of infallibility, they may yield to it without disputing; yet not without examining, as did those of Beroea, who tryed the Sermon of St. Paul, whether it was agreeable to other scriptures: and were there now a synod made up of 40. or 50. men like Peter and Paul, a church should reverence their orders; but yet that synod should have no coercive jurisdiction over the church, but such as overcometh the inward man by per­swasion, and leadeth him as it were captive to the obedience of truth. And in case men and churches were not perswaded, or did delay obe­dience and submission, I say that such an Apo­stolicall [Page 184] synod could bring neither churches nor men to an outward conformity to their sentences, lawes and decrees, without a power del [...]ated from the magistrate, or some magi­stracy seated in churches.

Let us come to the second section.

As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by vertue of their office, or they with other fit persons, up­on delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

There is nothing in this section but I will willingly grant. 1. They yield that magistrates may call synods; 2. that a synod is an assembly of men convocated by the magistrate; 3. who are to advise the magistrate about ordering mat­ters of religion and discipline; 4. under an or­thodox magistrate, as synods receive their juris­diction from the magistrate, so private churches under them ought to receive their orders and constitutions as lawes of the magistrate: but un­der an heterodox magistrate, synods receive their authority from private churches; so that canons and decrees of synods are so far valid, as they are approved or ratified by private churches, that have conferred the power, they being then in lieu of the magistrate.

The generall assembly of Scotland, perceiving [Page 185] that this article doth much weaken ecclesiasticall power under an orthodox magistrate, hath thought fit in their generall assembly at Eden­burgh Aug. 27. sess. 23. to put a glosse or com­ment upon it, saying that the assembly under­standeth some part of the second article of the thirty first chapter, only of Kirks not settled or constituted in point of government: and that although in such Kirks a synod of ministers and other fit persons may be called by the ma­gistrates authority and nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; and although likewise the ministers of Christ, without delegation from their churches, may of themselves and by vertue of their office meet together synodi­cally in such Kirks not yet constituted; yet nei­ther of these ought to be done in Kirks consti­tuted and settled. So they will have the second article to be understood of churches not consti­tuted or settled: in which case, they say the magistrate may call synods; else they say it doth not belong to him, but to the ministers, who then ought to assemble of themselves, with­out any commission from the magistrate: which is expressely against the literall meaning of the second article, which, as all others of the con­fession, is of things that are to be received, be­lieved and practised at all times, and which they count of Divine right, and for which therefore they alledge places of Scripture, namely Isa. 49. [Page 186] v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers; a place which, in my opinion, maketh little to the pur­pose, no more then the place out of 1. Tim. 2. v. 2. where we are bidden to pray for Kings, doth to prove the power of magistrates in calling of synods. Neither doth that place, 2 Chronic. 19. v. 9. &c. avail much, but only that magistrates may call and constitute assemblies in generall: for there is no speech there of any ecclesiasticall assemblies, for they were not yet thought on at that time. The 29. and 30. chapters of 2 Chronic. for the magistrates power of calling synods, is of the same stamp. It is true, chap. 29. v. 4. E­zechiah gathered Priests & Levites together, but it was to make an exho [...]tation to them; not that they should congregate into a synod in­vested with judiciall authority: I think that none ever yet dream'd of it, that synods in the old Te­stament could be proved out of that place. The last place Prov. 11. v. 14. speaketh of counsellors, in the multitude of which there is safety; but not a word there of calling of them, nor that those who were called were Priests and Levites, but rather any other. One would almost think that they had a mind to weaken a good cause, and make invalid the power of the magistrate, by alledging places that make nothing for it: but however they will have them to passe for valid proofs, that magistrates by divine right are to call synods. But to the matter: I am quite of another mind then our brethren the Scots are, [Page 187] and I desire to be judged by any other then by them, whether there be any spark of reason or truth in their saying. Is it not more like that in a well-constituted church things must run their wonted channel, & that the power of cal­ling synods belongeth to the magistrate; but the church being in a troubled condition, then that ministers, yea any good man should contribute his helping hand toward the reforming of the church, whether by way of synods or otherwise, without expecting orders from the magistrate? In turbata ecclesia omnis homo miles est Chri­stianus & minister. But who sees not but the drift of our brothers the Scots is, to constitute a jurisdi­ction independent from that of the magistrate?

The third section or article of the 31. chapt: of the confession needeth a comment, to make it agree with the second: it belongeth to synods and councels ministerially to determine con­troversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for better or­dering of the publick worship of God and go­vernment of his church, to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration, and authori­tatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God ap­pointed thereunto in his word. First, they do [Page 188] not define what synods are here meant, whether convocated by the magistrate or by private churches, or even convocated by the ministers themselves. If by the magistrate, how can a com­pany of men called to advise him make constitu­tions valid, except they be first submitted to the judgement and approbation of him by whose authority they were assembled? The like judge­ment may we make of the decrees of sy [...]ods convocated by the common consent of private churches. If the ministers assemble of their own accord, were they so many Apostles, they must have some magistracy to give vigour of law obli­ging to obedience, either actively or passively, else their canons would have no jurisdiction, but over them they could overcome by perswasion.

The fourth article or section is; all synods or councels since the Apostles time, whether ge­nerall or particular, may erre, and many have erred: therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practise, but to be used as an help in both. A synod is no rule but to him that is willing to make it a rule. All the synods power and authority is only so much as either the magistrates will is, or a conscience in­lightened or convinced is perswaded to yield unto. I know no middle way to create authori­ty. There is a rare saying of Festus Hommius disp. 18. thes. 2. de concil. authoritate: the foundation of all synodicall authority is an agreement with the divine truth and ordi­nance, [Page 189] whereof we must be first evidently and clearly made certain, before the synod get any authority with us. So that synods are of au­thority, when men and churches are clearly con­vinced of the equity, reasonablenesse and truth of their decisions.

I am not of the opinion of Gregory Nazian­zen and Bazil, who condemned all synods ge­nerally; for I believe they are of very good use, and necessarily to be had, so that the members be not invested with any judiciall power inde­pendent from the magistrate, or from particular churches, whose decisions be counsells and ad­vices given to them both, not lawes: otherwise I think little or no good is to be expected from them, and that they are not a way to decide con­troversies.

1. Judges in an assembly never so upright must be indifferent to persons and causes; but so can­not ministers be in a synod: for a synod made up of orthodox Divines, is no competent judge of Arminians. Therefore it is no marvell if the councell of Trent did condemn the Lutherans in the first Session, before they ever heard them; or that a late synod at Charenton, prepossessed against independent churches in England, did as it were anathematize them, though none of the members of that synod, being 80. in num­ber, had hardly seen the face or writings of any of them. 2. It seemeth to be against all courses and proceedings of courts, either of law or chan­cery, [Page 190] that both plaintiffs and defendants should sit as judges in one judicatory to determine their own cause. 3. If there be but one party, either the defendent or plaintiff, sitting & voting, no doubt but he will cast his adversary out of the court; therefore there being no other then Protestants sitting and voting in the synod of Dordrecht, the Arminians could not chuse but loose their cause: besides that it is no lesse unreasonable, that one party should submit to the judgement of his adverse party. 4. It seemeth neither just nor reasonable, that churches and men should submit to the major part of the members stating and concluding of any matter of religion, ra­ther then to the weight of the reasons of the mi­nor part dissenting. Should in synods alwaies the major number of votes carry it; in a gene­rall councill, made up of Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, no doubt but that party that is most numerous, though it carrieth it but by one vote, would give religion and faith to all the rest: therefore the late long Parliament did wisely decline to adhere rather to the major part of the members in the assembly, who had voted for a presbyterian government, reserving to them­selves the liberty to weigh the reasons of both, not to number the persons. Hence we may gather, how unreasonable it is in matters of faith and religion, that that which is not the act of all, should be reputed as done by all; when as it may fall out, that the major [Page 191] part hath out-voted the minor but by one suf­frage: for usually all collections, syntagmes of confessions of faith, canons and decrees, go cur­rant and are published to the world, as if all the members had consented to them, with a nemine contradicente. Thus the late confession of faith and directory go for currant to be the opinion of the assembly, because they were the act of the major part of them; albeit many godly and learned men among them had no hand in fra­ming the 30. & 31. chapters of the confession. In affairs concerning temporall life it may be born with, when what hath been voted by the ma­jor part of the counsell or Senat goeth for the act of all: and this was one of the state-precepts that Philip the II. gave to Margerite Governess of the low-Countrves by the report of Strada. 5. In all great differences betwixt nation & na­tion, army and army party and party, the judges that are appointed to reconcile them must pro­pound conditions by which parties in extremes should come to some accommodation and moderation, each side if need be complying and parting with some of his right, to prevent a con­tinuance of strife. But such a composition can­not be expected in or by a synod, for making up differences in religion, since each side apprehen­deth his opinion to be the truth, and would think it a great sin to baulk any part of it, or admit an accommodation.

CHAPTER XVII.

THis subject, touching the identity or diver­sity of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall and civil among the Jewes, well understood, will decide the whole controversie: which Mr. Gillespie well apprehendeth, and therefore perceiving the strength of this plea, that good reason it is, that the ecclesiasticall power should be distinct or not distinct in the church of the Jewes as well as in that of the Christians, since the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing, of cen­suring, excommunicating, and making lawes authoritatively be the same in both churches; and therefore, that it cannot be supposed with­out great inconvenience that the jurisdictions were indistinct amongst the Jewes, but distinct amongst the Christians; this, I say, being con­sidered [Page 193] by him, makes him withall endeavour to lay hold on that opinion that maketh jurisdi­ctions distinct in the Commonwealth of Is­rael; for this supposition he takes to be the ground-work of the ecclesiasticall jurisdicti­on.

But I will not enter far into this matter, ha­ving in the examen of the 30. chapter of the confession of the Rever. Assembly taken off the main objection, from Amariah and Zebadiah; for I cannot think but Mr. Gillespie hath em­braced this opinion for conveniency, and more because it is subservient to the fabrick of his book, then that it hath any great probability: 1. because most of the learned Papists and o­thers, even his fellow-presbyters, are of another judgement, who if they had had never so little shew or likelinesse for a double jurisdiction a­mong the Jewes, specially the Papists, and with them Amyraldus and others, no doubt they would have made as much of this advantage to further their cause, as Mr. Gillespie thinketh to prevail with it for himself: 2. because Mr. Gil­lespie, when he hath done what he can to assert a double jurisdiction in the church of the Jewes, reaps very little benefit by it; for he pulls down by his large concessions with one hand, what he hath striven to set up with the other.

For the first, it were an endlesse labour to produce the names of the authors that are for E­rastus opinion in this particular; and for one [Page 194] Constantinus l'Empereur which he pretends to be on his side, twenty may be brought of a con­trary opinion. Not long since discoursing with Manasseh Ben Israel, at the house of my noble friend Mr. Sadler, about this same subject, he told me he could not conceive how this opinion, that there was a double jurisdiction among the Jewes, was taken up by the Christians, and that he held it altogether absurd, against Scri­pture and reason. Nothing can be added to what Grotius, Selden and Cunaeus have written on this subject. Amyraldus in his Theses de spi­ritu servitutis thes. 28. saith, that religion and policy were so straightly conjoyned among the Jewes, that one being overthrown, the other could not stand, but must needs fall too: and in his book of the government of the church p. 46. he saith, the same man did judge Israel as a soveraign magistrate, and was also over mat­ters of religion. Lud. Capellus parte 3. de mini­sterii verbi necessitate thes. 18, 19, &c. doth not only conspire with Amyraldus, but outgo him, in asserting that the 70. judges or elders, though lay-men, and not of the tribe of Levi, were not only to compose controversies and suits in law, but also to instruct the people about the worship of God, and to teach them the fear of the Lord; so far that from the time of Ezra to Jesus Christ any in the synagogues, which were known to be gifted, might teach, read and expound the Scri­pture: which he proves by the example of Jesus [Page 195] Christ Luc. 4. 17. who, though unknown, was admitted to expound the Scripture; and of St. Paul, Act. 13. 15. My rever. Father is of the same mind, namely in the 19. chapter de Mo­narchia temporali, where he saith, that neither the Levites nor the chief Priests made use of any other law then that which was common, and that they had no ecclesiasticall judges distinct from the civil. Iudicious R. Hooker is very ex­presse for us in his 8. book of ecclesiasticall poli­ty p. 144. Our state is according to the pattern of Gods own ancient elect people; which people was not part of them the Commonwealth, and part of them the Church of God, but the self­same people whole and entire were both under one chief governour, on whose supream autho­rity they did all depend. I have alledged else­where Mr. Lightfoot wholly concurring with Richard Hooker.

Mr. Herbert Thorndike, a judicious writer and much versed in the antiquities of the Jewes, is wholly for an identity of jurisdiction among the Jewes. In 8. chapter he saith, that when Moses was dead, a President was chosen over and beside the seventy, whom they called the Nasi, to be in his stead from age to age, as R. Moses writeth. Which refuteth what some say, that the President of the Sanedrim was alwayes a Priest; and sheweth, that the chief ruler of the Commonwealth was ruler over persons and causes of all kinds, without any distinction of [Page 196] civil and ecclesiasticall. In the 9. chapter we have these words; The Sanedrim consisted of the chief of that people, as well as of the Priests and Levites, because the chief causes of that Commonwealth, as well as of religion, passed through their hands.

Tostatus, a great Papist and writer, upon Matth. 16. v. 19. will tell us the opinion of his party: In the old Testament a distinction of jurisdiction was not necessary, because it was one people & one nation, and one temple where­to all the Iewes did gather together: and there­fore since they could conveniently be governed, the unity of jurisdiction standing, there ought not to have been a distinction: yea it was very convenient that there should be an identity of jurisdiction, that it might be believed that it was the same God to whom they all mi­nistred. There was the same reason for the tem­ple, for it was his will that there should be one place in which they should offer sacrifice unto him; lest if that had been done in many places, they might have thought there had been many gods. Stapleton de Prin. doctrin. 197. acknowledgeth the same indentity of jurisdicti­on among the Jewes.

I come to the second, viz. to Mr. Gillespies concessions; which are as large as I can wish: that the church & state were the same materially; that the same man was both high Priest and chief judge of the nation; that elders of syna­gogues [Page 197] did exercise coercive jurisdiction; that the Jewish Senat after the thirtieth year of Christ was ecclesiasticall, and yet was over all per­sons and causes, except capitall; and that there was not then any other senat extant; but that before the thirtieth year, the same senat having the judgement of capitall causes, was civil. All these being granted, I see not what further can be required in the behalf of unity of jurisdiction; since 1. the same men that were members of the ecclesiasticall senat, were also members of the civil senat: 2. that the synagogues were in­vested with magistracy, since the elders had a coercive power; so that in the very synagogues there is by his confession a coalition of powers and jurisd ctions: 3. making but one senate both before and after the 30. year, which jud­ged of all causes and matters, and over all per­sons, the civil before the 30. of Christ judging of ecclesiasticall causes, and the ecclesiasticall after the 30. judging of civil.

But I could never understand why he calls the senate after the 30. year of Christ meerly ecclesiasticall, because it did not judge of capi­tall causes, though it had cognizance and judgement of all other matters Can the judging or not judging of capitall and criminall causes alter the constitution and name of an assembly or court, so as that when it judgeth of capitall causes it must be called civil, otherwise it must be called ecclesiasticall?

Now because there is some obscurity in that concession of his, that the church and state were the same materially, we will hear what his countrey-men say to that, in a late book printed anno 1657. called A true representation of the present divisions of the church of Scotland, that we may the better weigh his recantation, or ra­ther modification, when he saith, that though they were the same materially, yet they were distinct formally: the words are pag. 18. The church of God being restrained to that one peo­ple of Israel, their church and commonwealth were materially the same by divine constitu­tion, so that none could be members of the com­monwealth but such as were also members of the church, and so professours of the true reli­gion, as now under the Gospell it may be other­wise. Now let us hear Mr. Gillespie pag. 6. They were formally distinct in respect of distinct lawes; the ceremoniall was given to them in reference to their church state, the judiciall was given to them in reference to their civil state. But if they were distinct in regard of the judiciall and ceremoniall lawes, why may they not be united in regard of the morall law? For Mr. Gillespie passeth over the morall law, and leaves it uncertain who is to be the keeper and guardian of it, and whether it was given in re­ference to their church state or in reference to their civil state, or whether a third power, juris­diction or state must not be constituted, that is [Page 199] neither civil state nor church state, to which the morall law hath reference: for sure there was some union of jurisdictions in the protection and defence of the morall law, which was as it were the bottom and the basis upon which the ceremoniall and judiciall were grounded, and is of far more large extent then the ceremoniall and judiciall put together; and from which, in so many difficulties that are incident for the clearing of ceremoniall rites and judiciall sen­tences, there must be continuall appeals to the keepers of the morall law; which being at least equally in the custody of the magistrate and church-officers, and both parties having a joint interest in the morall law, as to see all men and businesses governed and squared thereby, they also to that end must conjoin their power and jurisdiction. For indeed the morall law is no more different from the politick, then from the law given to families, fathers, masters, hus­bands; only the politick law is the practise of the morall, or is the morall law applicable to cities, families, &c. In like manner the cere­moniall law is but the morall law applyed in the practise of religious service: for the morall law saith, God only is to be worshipped; the ceremoniall saith where, how, when & by whom. So that as all lawes are streams from the morall law, so must all jurisdiction be from one foun­tain of magistracy. It seems that Calvin had the same thought, when in his harmony of the Pen­tateuch [Page 200] he reduceth all lawes under one classis.

But to examine a little nearer his distinction of materiall and formall; I do not understand what he meaneth by formall in opposition to materiall: for the jurisdictions that are one ma­terially, must be also one formally. Let us sup­pose two coordinate supreme senates, as Mr. Gil­lespie would have them, among the Jewes, one civil, and another ecclesiasticall; and that (as he would have it) the same men were mem­bers of one and the other: I say, if they do not differ materially, neither do they differ for­mally, so long as no law, order or constitution, civil or ecclesiasticall, can have any force with­out the joint consent of both, and except both senates put their seals of confirmation to what either of them hath decreed. For example, the appointing a day of publick humiliation by the ecclesiasticall senate, must be also an act of the same men sitting in a civil senate, who, if they will have the injunction to stand, must make orders subservient to it, that there be no markets nor courts that day kept; otherwise those that keep markets or courts upon such a day by ver­tue of former warrants from the civil senate, will not know how far they are to obey the in­junction of the ecclesiasticall senate, without a dispensation from the civil senate. This double jurisdiction is in effect but one; for the same men appointing a day of humiliation in an ec­clesiasticall senate to be kept, forbid also in a [Page 201] civil senate all markets and courts to be kept: and though one part of the injunction was made in one senate, and the other part in the o­ther senate; (which is very impertinent, and a needlesse multiplication of businesses) yet those two jurisdictions must at length be resolved in­to an integrall one; as when Protectour, Lords and Commons, that make up one Parliament, must unanimously agree that all the votes and orders shall end in the same law and act. I confesse there can hardly be clashing of powers, judgements & votes, betwixt these two supreme senates, such as Mr. Gillespie supposeth, so long as the same men are members of both senates; but withall I should count it a needlesse and senselesse multiplication of senates, and that in vain the same matter and cause were to be de­cided by two coordinate senates, when as one senate would serve the turn: for however, at length the two senates, as they meet in the same persons, so must they in the same accord and agreement; which is all one as if it were but one jurisdiction.

Again, it is observable, that diversity of things and persons to which lawes and constitutions have relation, doth not constitute a diversity of power and jurisdiction, specially when the same men are to make the same lawes and constitu­tions: for as the same men making lawes about navigation and the militia, cannot be said to act from two powers and jurisdictions they are in­vested [Page 202] with; so neither if the same men do make lawes, as for example, about Gods worship, and the militia.

Briefly, I believe Sir Thomas More in all his Utopia cannot parallel such a piece of constitu­tion of state, made up of two jurisdictions, both coordinate & subordinate each to the other, ma­terially the same, not formally, where of the same men are members. A happy state indeed, in which there can be no clashing, except the same man be opposite to himself, or that the members of the ecclesiasticall senate forget to day, what they decreed yesterday when they met in a ci­vil senate. But since these two senates are ma­terially the same men, what need we give them severall names and formes, for some acci­dentall circumstances of time and place, either because they do not sit in the same place, or that they are upon severall businesses? must the same members of Parliament, sitting to day upon re­ligion, be called an ecclesiasticall senate, acting by an ecclesiasticall power, and to morrow sit­ting to order the militia of the state, it may be in another place, be called a civil or military se­nate, acting by a civil or military power?

But most of those that are for ecclesiasticall presbyterian jurisdiction, finding no probabili­ty in the opinion of Mr. Gillespie, viz. that a­mong the Jewes there was a jurisdiction in the hands of church-officers distinct from that of the magistrate, go another way, and admit wil­lingly [Page 203] an identity of jurisdiction, but withall say, that from the coalition of jurisdictions a­mongst the Jewes, it cannot be inferred that the same ought to be under the Gospell; that that church in its pedagogy is no pattern to the church in its maturity: thus speaketh Amyraldus in his book of the government of the church chap. 3. p. 91. Whoever commits these two powers into the hands of the same persons, he not only brings back the church into its infancy, as if it were still under the pedagogy of the law, but also casts it into that confusion from which the condition of those times did deliver it.

A man upon better grounds may invert this paralogisme, and make use of this reasoning of Amyraldus to prove the quite contrary to what he drives at; and so imitate smiths, who with the same tool pull out & drive in a nayl: for had the Jewes had a government of the church distinct from that of the Commonwealth, I would thence inferre, there is no further need among Chri­stians of such a division, but rather of a coali­tion of powers; that the Jewes being rude and weak in knowledge, under a burdensome ad­ministration, loaden with ceremonies and legall rites, where the sixth part of the people was ei­ther judge, elder, leader, Priest, Prophet, Levite, or officer in the Leviticall service, had need to have many keepers, guardians, tutours, many helps of government; so the governours might be very well parted into ecclesiasticall and civil, [Page 204] and so the whole government might be shared betwixt the two supreme powers, the keepers of each having wherewithall to employ them­selves: but the Christian church being wholly freed from the burdensome administration of lawes and officers, and having no platform of government, neither hath it need of an ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction, when there is no eccle­siasticall law or constitution.

Thus, were I of Mr. Gillespies opinion, that among the Jewes the government of the church was distinct from that of the Commonwealth, I would speak in the language and words of A­myraldus, and infer, that for the same reason that the Jewes had a double jurisdiction, the Christians may be very well without it.

But the opinion of Amyraldus, that there was no distinction of jurisdiction among the Jewes, rendereth his inference for a double jurisdiction under the Gospell much more groundlesse, weak and absurd: for if under a burdensome administration, when they had need of many pedagogues, and schoolmasters, yet they were governed without distinct government of church and state; much lesse do the Christians need such a distinct government, seeing they are freed from the necessity of having so many schoolmasters, guides, watch-men, and masters, to govern them, and teach them so many rudi­ments, and unriddle them all the ceremonies: besides that, sure God never gives distinct gover­nours, [Page 205] but also he giveth a distinct law and discipline, to be a rule to govern by; which yet God never did.

Though I am so far of the opinion of Amy­raldus, that the government of the church was not distinct from that of the state; yet I am not of his mind in this, to think that identity of go­vernment would bring a confusion in Christian states: for I count that identity so needfull and necessary, whether the state be never so much or never so little burdened by men, lawes, consti­tutions, and businesses to dispatch, that in a state loaden with lawes and businesses, as the Com­monwealth of the Jewes was, two jurisdictions coordinate would have brought an horrible confusion, and multiplication of suits and busi­nesses, and in a state lesse incumbered with lawes and businesses, that double jurisdiction would still bring more work then need be if there was but one jurisdiction.

The argument of Mr. Gillespie, to prove that there were two coordinate jurisdictions among the Jewes, because of the wide division and di­stinction of offices amongst them, neither the King being to take upon him the Priesthood, nor the Priest the Kingdom, as it makes nothing for him, so doth it rather plead for an identity of jurisdiction under the new Testament: for if when the functions were so distinct, that the King could not offer incense and be Priest, nor the Priest King, yet there was no distinction of [Page 206] jurisdictions; much lesse is that distinction need­full under the new Testament, when nothing hinders but that Kings may be ministers, and mi­nisters Kings.

CHAPTER XVIII.

IN treating of the church, I conceive a world of writers, both Papists and Protestants, might have spared themselves much labour about the nature, power, truenesse, fallibility, anti­quity, succession of it, if both parties had not walked in the dark, and if they had agreed upon some few and very easie common principles, con­sonant to holy Scripture and reason. How ma­ny volumes on our side are written, to state how far the Romish church is a true church, to vindicate us from schisme, to prove that we have a right succession of churches, power and mini­stry, that the English church is a true Catho­lick church, that the reformed in France have likewise a right to that title? One party yields more then needs must; and fearing to want for [Page 207] themselves a right of church-succession and Baptisme, they will acknowledge the Romish church to be a true church, and yet with such metaphysicall reservations and modifications, that from a metaphysicall goodnesse they in­sensibly descend to a morall, making of a ma­gistrates power an ecclesiast call, of a cadaver and carkasse a living body, of an aggregation of churches under one presbytery of the same extent with the jurisdiction of the magistrate, the only true church of Christ. This made the late English hierarchy conceive, that their best course was to approach as near as they could to the Romish, yea to be one church with them; that otherwise they could not make their power, cal­ling and succession good, nor clear themselves from the guilt of schisme. So that as all parties have been equally mistaken in their grounds, so have they hardly understood one another, raising doubts where there were none; some by that weakning their own cause, and streng­thening that of their adversaries, who took all concessions for truths, putting their opposites to very great straights. For not knowing well how to deny the church of Rome to be a true church, and that salvation is to be had in it; and not being able to shew an uninterrupted suc­cession from the Apostles time, as the Roma­nists can do, nor vindicate themselves from schisme; each party is very eager to call his neighbour schismatick, rending the seamlesse [Page 208] coat of Jesus Christ, that name being liberally bestowed by the Romanists upon the Prote­stants, and by some of these upon those that ad­here to the dissenting brethren: each of them, Papists and Presbyterians, challenging that seamlesse coat of Christ, even right of church and ecclesiasticall power; and therefore for fear of schism & rendings, they will be sure to cast lots upon it, that they may have it whole and entire. Whereas had both been well informed of the nature of church and of schisme, and that suceession is a needlesse plea, neither availing the Romanists a whit, nor prejudicing any way the reformers, Baronius, Bellarmin, & Stapleton, as well as Whitaker, Chamier, and the like, might have saved the world so much labour in reading them; the first in putting the reformers upon the task of proving themselves a true church, and the latter in taking off the aspersion of schismaticks: for then no doubt all the hard task had been on the Romanists side, who being not able to make invalid our grounds about the nature of the church, the power of the church, the calling of pastors, their succession, and of schisme, had been wholly put upon vindicating themselves, and not weakning our title; for it had been to little purpose, so long as we had retained the same grounds, which do put us into a firm and unmoveable possession. About the nature of schisme Dr. Owen (whose grounds, which is very strange, though we never con­ferred [Page 209] our notes together, are those that I stand upon in treating of the nature of the church) hath so well resolved the world, that it is but in vain for any one either to write after him or a­gainst him. And having in my Paraenesis han­dled the nature of the church, & intending here only an extract of it, I will say only so much of it as will make way to what I mainly intend to prove, viz. that the parity and independency of churches each from the other in power of exercising all church acts, best agreeth not only with Scripture, antiquity, and the opinion of Zuinglius, Musculus, Bullingerus and Erastus, but also with the sense of the seven dissenting brethren, sitting twelve years agone in West­minster together with the other members of the assembly of Divines; yea that many forrain divines, and other learned men, Salmasius for one, no way intending to favour the cause we have in hand, have been strong patrons of it in severall of their writings, and treating of the right of churches and of the power of the magi­strate over them, have laid the same foundations as we.

I find in holy writ, specially in the new Testa­ment, that the word Church is taken properly three wayes. I. for the mysticall body of Je­sus Christ, the elect, justifyed and redeemed, whereof the Gospell is full; thus Hebr. 12. v. 23. and Ephes. 5. v. 26, 27. &c. II. for the uni­versality of men through the world outwardly [Page 210] called by the preaching of the word, yielding an externall obedience to the Gospell, and pro­fessing visibly Christianity; of this mention is made 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. and 2 Tim. 2. v. 20. III. for a particular visible congregation, with one accord meeting in one place for the worship of God according to his institution; which is spo­ken of Rom. 16. v. 4. Gal. 1. v. 2. 1 Cor. 16. v. 1. 2 Cor. 8. v. 1. 1 Thess. 2. v. 14. Act. 9. v. 31. Act. 15. v. 41. 1 Cor. 16. v. 19. yea such a church as is confined within a private family, as Rom. 16. v. 5. St. Hierome upon the 1. of the Galatians takes the word church properly ei­ther for a particular church, or for that church called the Body of Christ, which hath neither spot nor wrinkle: dupliciter ecclesia potest dici; & ea quae non habet maculam & rugam, & vere est Christi corpus, & ea quae in Christi nomine congregatur; relating to the words of Christ Matth. 18. v. 19. where two or three, &c. which cannot be understood of a nationall church.

There be two places in the new Testament where the word church is taken otherwise: namely Act. 19. v. 41. for a concourse of peo­ple; & Matth. 18. v. 17. a place so much contro­verted, and which when we speak of excommu­nication requireth we should insist upon it. It sufficeth here to say, that if by it were meant an ecclesiasticall assembly of pastors and elders, some other parallel to it might be found in the [Page 211] old or new Testament. I am sure as there is none in the new, so neither in the old; where the words kahal or gnedah are taken sometimes for the whole congregation, as Deuter. 31. v. 30. where Moses pronounced a canticle in the hear­ing of the whole church or congregation; and yet the 28. verse sheweth that by the whole congregation the magistrates and elders are meant: thus Levit. 4. v. 13, 14, 15, and 21. where if the people had trespassed ignorantly, the church, that is the assembly of magistrates and elders, are commanded to offer atonement for the sin; and Deut. 23. v. 1. the eunuch, the ba­stard, the Moabite and the Ammonite are barred from the congregation or the church, that is from publick employment; for a converted Moabite was not forbidden from the Jewish church. Sometimes for a senat of judges and magistrates, called Synedrium; as Proverb. 26. v. 26. and so it is interpreted by the LXX. and there you have a plain exposition of the word church Matth. 18. for the like cause of wrong and injury is spoken of in both places, and the like judicatory: so Ecclesiasticus 23. v. 24. the adulteresse is convented before the church, that is before the judicatory of judges and el­ders. Which places manifestly declare, that Christ meant such a judicatory amongst the Jewes, whereof the words heathen and publi­can make further proof; and that Jesus Christ spoke of the same kind of judicatory and men, [Page 212] as ordinarily were found when he spoke the words: but it is evident that neither in Christs time, nor ever since his time, the word church was taken for an assembly or senat of ecclesiasti­calls, or an assembly of pastors. So that, was there any such sentence of excommunication or cen­sure inflicted by the church upon the party that did the wrong, this judgement or sentence must needs be pronounced by such a Synedrium or senat of judges and elders, endowed with judi­ciall authority, as the word church was usually taken for among the Jews. But suppose the word church was not used by Christ in that sense, our brethren should shew us that Jesus Christ did speak it in a Scripture sense, and as it was taken in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, namely (as they would have it) for an assembly of Christian church-officers invested with judi­ciall authority. Here one controverted place of Scripture must be expounded by another: and while there is very great likelyhood that Jesus Christ meant a senat ordinarily sitting amongst the Jewes to decide controversies of wrong be­twixt brother and brother, and which was not made up of officers distinct from the magistrate, or men delegated by him; if they will weaken our plea and exposition, which is very rationall and naturall, and make it as probable and likely that he spoke of a company of church-officers distinct from the magistrate, they must look out some parallel place either in the old or new [Page 213] Testament, where the word church is so under­stood; which I am confident they will never find.

But to yield as much as I can; though I find no where in the old Testament the words kahal and gnedah, church, signifying such an assem­bly of church-officers, yet I find 1 Sam. 19. v. 20. the word lahakath mentioned, where it is spoken of a company of Prophets, which word our brethren might as well interpret a church: but neither would this serve their turn; for in that place of Samuel quoted, those prophets were not sitting in a senat, church or colledge, nor were they about any church act, but were travelling in the high-way: and however, our Lord Jesus Christ had no reference to such a church or as­sembly of prophets, who as prophets were never endowed with a judiciall power. Samuel indeed was over them as an Arch-prophet; but as such he had no jurisdiction in Israel, but as a Prince and Judge of the people.

CHAPTER XIX.

HAving mentioned the acceptions of the word Church in the new Testament; there being not any visible assembly either according to the first or second acception, it remaineth, that a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place with one accord, about the worship of God, enjoying the same ordinances, hath the true denomination of a church. This church, presbyterian, particular church or congregatio­nall, is the true adequate subject of all church­right, discipline and power; which it enjoyes partly by a divine positive right, as it is a con­gregation of Christians, partly by a divine na­turall civil politick right, as it is a society of men endowed with wisedome, prudence and liberty, to govern themselves by such lawes as they find most convenient for their subsi­stence.

The first is a divine positive right: for how­ever men are so, or otherwise commanded by some externall power, yet the pastor is to look for a flock and people, and the people for a pa­stor; and both are to meet in as convenient a place and competent a number as they can, to enjoy the ordinances of Christ, by hearing the word, praying, and partaking of the Sacra­ments, [Page 215] by a warrant and command from Christ. By the same right, warrant and command, the pastor or pastors of the church are to perform all the pastorall acts, as to preach to those that will hear, not by constraint, but willingly, to command in the name of Christ, to exhort, to dehort, to beseech men to be reconciled to God, to lay out Christ in the promises of the Gospell, to denounce the judgements of God to the impe­nitent and unbelievers, to admit to the Eucharist all baptized persons, and visibly professing Chri­stianity, who are not ignorant, or publick in­famous offenders', or profane, refusing none by any judiciall act of theirs denouncing sentence of excommunication, or any other censure, but by their generall duty as Christians, by which they are bound not to have communion with such unfruitfull workers of darknesse. Other­wise they are to impose nothing, no injun­ction, no censure or punishment, but on such as without constraint and willingly undergo it, and are contented so to do. The other acts of a pastor out of the congregation are, to of­fer himself, sent or unsent, to visit and com­fort the sick, the prisoner, the widow, the fa­therlesse, to see all persons and families that are of his flock, to be the same at home as at church, of the same Gospell-conversation, and that all ranks be filled with the know­ledge of the Lord, to respect no mans de­gree or person in delivering his message from [Page 216] Christ, saying even as John Baptist to Herod, it is not for thee to keep thy brothers wife; briefly, to do the office of a faithfull minister in season and out of season.

The acts of the people in a society of church-members are double; some do respect the pa­stor, others the fellow-members. Those that respect the pastor or pastors are, to maintain, observe, respect and honour them, first for their callings sake, looking upon them as Ambassa­dours from Christ, and then for their work, and the word that they bear; to receive their com­mands as commands of Christ, and yet not with a blind obedience, but first being perswaded and convinced, yea judging them by the judge­ment of spirituall men, and by a judgement of discretion and approbation, proving the pastors doctrine, though it came out of another St. Pauls mouth.

The acts and duties of church-members as such one towards another are, to love, edifie, forbear, and submit one to another. But a main act of a church-member as such is, not to submit his own reason to the number of his fellow-members, in assenting to or dissenting from such a doctrine, act, or law made by them, but to the weight, and to what he by his reason inlightened by the word conceiveth to be most good, true, just and reasonable; yet, for conformity sake and mutuall edification, yielding as far as he may.

The acts of the power of the church by a na­turall divine politick civil right, not as they are Christians or church-members, but as they are a society of men endowed with humane prudence, freedom of body and mind, and have discretion as to govern themselves and their private fami­lies, so to contribute their advice and help to­wards the government of any society of men, whereof they are members, these acts, I say, are common to all other societies, as to a company, a hall, a corporation, a colledge or school: these acts are, to do all things orderly; to chuse their own church-officers; that orders made by the major part of the society shall oblige the minor dissenting part; to chuse time and place of meet­ing; to admit or reject such officers or members as the major part of the members shall think fit; that each member shall stand to any order of the discipline once consented unto by him, till the order be reversed by the consent of the major part.

All these acts are to be guided not only by the light of reason and common prudence, but chiefly by that measure of light of grace or faith that God hath imparted to every church-mem­ber; which light being not known but to him that hath received it, and the springs and mo­tives which induce each member of a church-so­ciety rather to be of this then of that judgement, in ordering and governing the society, being unknown to the universality of the society; [Page 218] therefore church-members are to be governed as the members of any other society, by the di­ctate of men as men, and not as Christians, sub­mitting, either actively or passively, to an order and law, because it is an order and law, not because it is good and reasonable. It is better in such things, as they say, that a mischief should happen then an inconvenience: for if one mem­ber, though alone in the right, should dissent from the rest of his fellow-members, no man but will judge that it is much better that this one dissenting member should submit to that which is wrong, either by acting or suffering, then that all proceedings for order and discipline should be stayed. Were no law valid but to him that thinketh it so, the world would be in a strange confusion.

So then, an assembly of Christians being a society of men, and a Christian having the face like a lawyer, a physitian or a merchant, and nothing being seen but the out-side, they must be all governed by the same dictate, which ap­peareth prima fronte to be reason to a man considered as a man, and not as he is a Christi­an, lawyer or physitian. And as Dionysius go­verned his Kingdom and school by the same di­ctates of reason; so must a society of merchants, a colledge of physitians, a family, and so a socie­ty of Christians.

Of these two kinds of acts, as every society hath one proper to it self, as it is a society of [Page 219] merchants, physitians, lawyers, Christians; so one kind of these acts is common to all, as they are equally a society of men, that must have a go­vernment and magistracy set up within them­selves; and so must a society of Christians meet­ing about the worship of God, have.

But to make it evident that all church-acts are not acts of men as church-members, but as members of a society, and not as Christians, but as invested with magistracy, either assumed by a confederate discipline, or delegated, I might instance the like necessity of two kinds of acts in all societies of men that can be imagined, not considered as Christians. For example, these two kinds of acts will be found in a colledge of physitians, who, as physitians, joyn in con­sultation upon a case propounded to them, send bills to their apothecaries, examine and judge of the worth of those that are candidates, or have license to practise physick, discourse of their art either asunder, or in a body as in a consulta­tion: but as a society of men invested with ju­risdiction and magistracy, they chuse a presi­dent, censors and officers; they make choise of time and place to sit; they do all things orderly; they admit or expell members; they give autho­rity and license to practise physick; they bind themselves to stand to those orders that are made by the major part of their fellows; which act is no act of physitians as physitians, but a dictate of any other society, who usually take that for [Page 220] a law of the society that hath passed by the ma­jor part of their members. By this (by the way) we see what plea synods (except they be infal­lible, as the synod of the Apostles was) can have for making decrees and canons by an ec­clesiasticall jurisdiction, it being in truth no o­ther then what is assumed by all societies, whose orders do passe for lawes as to themselves, if made by the major part of their mem­bers.

But some of our brethren will interpose, and say, that if the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed a set rule for governing of particular churches, as some of them are of opinion, and this rule be not arbitrary, nor left to the dictate of mens common reason & prudence, then it followeth, that those acts for taking care that those set rules of Christ for government be according to the mind of Christ, are duties of church-mem­bers as such, and not as members of a society. To this I answer, were it so that the Lord Jesus Christ had appointed an exact and expresse rule for government in particular churches, I confess that those acts, to see the mind of Christ fulfilled, are acts of church-members as such, so far as both pastor and members do act in obedience to God, and not unto men, not by constraint, but willingly; for so the preaching and hear­ing of the word are to be performed by church-members as such: but these same acts, specially about government, as far as they are com­manded [Page 221] and imposed, and require externall obedience, and that the constitutions that are made about them are acts of the major part of the members, are valid not because they are lawes of Christ, and approved to every ones conscience, but because like lawes and orders of other societies, they do oblige as such, and as consented unto in the making of them by the major part of the members, though it may be the minor part were in the right; for as the acts of a magistrate commanding things directly commanded by God are the magistrates acts, so those acts performed in a particular church, though commanded expressely by God, in as much as they require externall obedience, either actively or passively, are acts of that magistracy set up in that church.

I find in a result of a synod in New-England, printed at the end of the book of Mr. Cotton of the Covenant of Grace, some conclusions whol­ly consonant to what I now write in this chap­ter, of the two kinds of acts that are performed in every particular church, the one done by them as church-members, the other being an effect of magistracy set up in every particular church, considered not as a church, but as a so­ciety. The first kind of acts is proper to those church-members, who by any power of magi­stacy are not put upon stronger engagements of oredience then if there had never been any. The second is exercised by magistracy, either in the [Page 222] church, or out of the church, against the obsti­nate and unruly, and such as need to be com­pelled. I find the synod speak much to that pur­pose; namely p. 40. the collectour saith from them, that for remedying disorders, and taking away or preventing grosse errors, there must be a power of restraint and coercion used; and in re­gard that every particular church is to be as well considered in the quality of a civil society, as a society of church-members.

CHAPTER XX.

WHen at first I undertook to write of this subject, I had no other designe but to assert the nullity of a double externall jurisdiction, and to prove that, there being no such thing, neither in Scripture nor reason, as an ecclesia­sticall power, all jurisdiction that was not united [Page 223] under and appertained not to the magistrate, & was not a power of coercion, was no jurisdi­ction. Neither was I then lesse dissenting from the church-way and power retained by the rever. brethren of the congregation, then from the presbyterian brethren; and the rather be­cause I saw both parties carried with as much eagernesse of opposition against Erastus and Mr. Coleman, as they were among themselves: besides, not fancying to my self otherwise, but that all jurisdiction called ecclesiasticall, and assumed by whatsoever society of men, either single or made up by the aggregation of many societies, which was not subordinate to the ma­gistrates power, was alike against reason and Scripture. But being not able to study my main matter intended, without enquiring into the nature of the power that both parties assumed to themselves, I found that the tenets of the bre­thren of the congregationall way could very well accord with mine, and, which was not yet by any considered, that the right of particular churches, as the dissenting brethren hold, might very well consist with that measure of power that Erastus, Bullingerus, Musculus, Gualterus, Grotius, Mr. Selden, & Mr. Coleman allowed to the magistrate in matters of religion and over churches; and that independency of private churches (I mean independency from presbyte­rian classicall and synodicall judicatories) doth no way hinder their right and liberty, nor their [Page 224] dependency on the magistrate, nor cutteth short the magistrate of the soveraign power he ought to have overall societies and persons, and in all causes and matters. Lastly, I found that this way of reconciliation was most agreeable with Scri­pture, reason, the practise of the Jewes, and of the primitive church of Christians; besides was confessed so by many learned men, who though seemingly otherwise affected, and carried by more heat, then knowledge of what was passed or held in this Island, have notwithstanding in their tracts about the power of churches, and discipline, laid the same grounds that the dis­senting brethren have delivered.

I need not be very long in proving, by reason that this reconciliation betwixt the advocates of the magistrates power in matters of religion, and those that plead for the right of churches, is already made to our hands by what I have al­ready handled. I adde further these following considerations.

1. Since every private church hath within it self a power of magistracy, and that all magi­stracy, in whatever society it be seated, is subor­dinate to the magistrate of those societies; it doth consequently follow, that that magistracy wherewith every private church is invested, is also subordinate to the magistrate: for, as I have demonstrated, since no society of church-mem­bers, (no more then of citizens, merchants, physicians and the like) can be imagined with­out [Page 225] lawes, discipline, and power of restraint and coercion, so neither can it be imagined that such a power is not dependent on the magistrate: for if a member of a society be obstinate and refractory, and will not be ruled but by coer­cion and compulsion, & it be more then church-members as such can do, to reduce him by ex­hortation and good advice; then church-mem­bers must act also by a power of magistracy, ei­ther assumed or delegated: however it be, that power of magistracy is subordinate to the sove­raign magistrate.

2. It is a maxime in Scripture, Philosophie and common reason, that theorems or propo­sitions that are true asunder, are no way con­tradictory one to another. Now these two fol­lowing propositions are of an undeniable truth, viz. The magistrate is a soveraign governour over all persons and societies, and in all mat­ters and causes, whether they pertain to reli­gion or no; and this, Every particular church hath a right and power to govern it self, with­out any dependence either on other churches or church-judicatories. Each of these propositions being considered as true asunder, must also be very consistent, and no way clashing one with the other.

3. That the right of churches may well stand with the power of the magistrate, may appear by example of many societies, as families, cor­porations, halls, whose intrinsecall power of [Page 226] magistracy agreeth exceeding well with that of the magistrate over them: for none doubteth but every father of a family hath a power to go­vern his children, houshold and servants as he listeth, being in his own as it were house a ma­gistrate and a Priest; yet none hitherto questioned but that paternall and oeconomicall powers are subordinate to the power of the magistrate, for even the civil law and so many constitutions about regulating the power of fathers, masters and husbands, and yet allowing them their au­thority at home, are an argument that their fa­therly power is consistent with their subordina­tion to the magistrate.

4. There be, as I shewed above, two kinds of acts to be performed in a church; one as they are church-members, the other as they are a so­ciety, that for their government must assume some part of jurisdiction of the same nature with the magistrates power. In the managing of the acts of the first kind there is no subordina­tion of the church to the magistrate, but only in the second: for preaching, hearing the word of God, administring the sacraments, walking holily, submitting one to another, are no acts of power subordinate to the magistrate; and un­der that consideration I will grant the right of churches not to depend on the magistrate: but as these acts in a church-way cannot be exercised without a power of magistracy assumed, in this regard a church may be said to be subordinate [Page 227] to the fountain of magistracy. For it is with these two kinds of acts in subordination to God and the magistrate, as with the body and the soul. For none doubts but the faculty and gifts of reasoning, apprehending truth, loving God and our neighbour, believing in Christ, are no acts subordinate to the power of the magistrate: but as reasoning, faith, love, must be supposed resident in the body of man, and that the man in doing acts subordinate to the magistrates power, as going, ordering, commanding and obeying, doth carry along his reason, faith and love; in like manner, as it is not possible to consider a man performing the acts of reason, faith and love, and not being the while subor­dinate to the power of the magistrate; so a church even performing those acts of church-members as such, in as much as the second kind of acts that are subordinate to the magistrate must be joyned with the first, cannot be considered without it be subordinate to the magi­strate.

5. If the power of churches were not subor­dinate to the magistrate, many inconveniences would follow. 1. That some churches ga­thered by the magistrate and his acts of appoint­ing time, place and stipends, should not be sub­ordinate to him. 2. Or if he should gather none, and besides appoint no publick worship to take place in all parts of his dominions, but leave that wholly to the will of those that con­gregate [Page 228] of their own accord, this, I say, would in a very short time breed irreligion or hea­thenisme in most places and most tanks of men: for then it must be conceived, that not one of 20. would congregate of themselves, & that the 19. parts not being called upon, nor any way invited by publick ordinances set up in all places of mens abode, atheisme or neglect of all reli­gion would soon ensue in most parts. And a persecuting magistrate, as in the primitive church, were ten times rather to be wished, then one carelesse and neglecting to set up ordi­nances: for by one of these two wayes, either by persecution, or by countenancing and com­manding the worship of God, the magistrate causeth religion to flourish; by doing neither one nor the other, he takes the way to abolish it, as Julian the apostate was about to do, if God had not the sooner cut him off.

6. But suppose it be granted on all sides, that the magistrate is bound to do what King Edward did or Queen Elizabeth, to banish popery, to set up protestantisme and an orthodox mini­stery in all parishes throughout England (which acts cannot be performed by a few particular churches with all their church power;) sure it must be also granted, that all those acts of a magistrate in ordering affairs of religion are in his disposall, and depending on him.

7. Since then the magistrate must have the [Page 229] ordering of those affairs of religion which he himself hath constituted, if he should not like­wise be the supreme governour of those churches which he hath not erected, but were gathered by the members of churches of their own accord, there could not but a great confu­sion arise in mens minds, as well as in the state; it being no small businesse to distinguish the power of the churches that are subordinate to the magistrate, and the power of those churches that are not.

From reason I descend to the authority of the rever, brethren, both in old and new Eng­land, dissenting from the presbyterians. In old England the reverend pious Jeremie Burroughs will be in stead of all the rest of his brethren; for in the eleventh chapter of his Irenicum he pro­fesseth to deliver not only his own judgement, but also that of his brethren with whom he had occasion to converse. Whoever shall peruse his book throughout, specially the fifth chapter, will find that he attributeth as much power to the ma­gistrate over churches, as any of the opposites to the presbyterian brethren. Which power of the magistrate while he asserteth, he never conceives it should overthrow his other positions, namely, in the seventh chapter, concerning the right and power of churches; or that his stating the right, liberty and power of churches, could not consist with the power of the magistrate over them. Now he is very expresse in the said [Page 230] chapter for the power of the magistrate in sa­cred things.

Pag. 21. he saith that magistrates in their ma­gistracy are specially to ayme at the promoting of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the mediatour; and there and throughout that long chapter you have these conclusions. 1. That the church and Commonwealth of Israel were mixed in one: that there is no reason it should be now other­wise. 2. That the power of the magistrate is a­like in the times of the old and new Testament; and were it so that nothing were set down of it in the new Testament, that it is enough it is a law not only granted to the Israelites, but also of the light given to the very heathens, whose power of magistracy was to govern religion as well as other things. 3. That it is most unrea­sonable, that a magistrate turning either from the heathenish or Jewish religion, should enjoy lesse power in matters of religion then he had when he was a Jew or heathen. An infidel ma­gistrate (saith he) converted to Christian re­ligion is thereby better inabled to perform the duty of his place, then before; but he had the same authority before. 4. He holds, that the ma­gistrate hath a soveraign judgement of his com­mands, though unskilfull in the things com­manded. A magistrate that is not skilfull in physick or in navigation, yet he may judge phy­sitians and mariners if they wrong others in their way. 5. He asserts largely the power of [Page 231] the magistrate in matters of religion, by the example of the Kings of Judah and Israel, yea of the Kings of Niniveh, and of Artaxerxes inter­posing his power in matters of religion, for which Ezra blesseth God; whosoever will not do the law of thy God and the law of the King, let judgement be executed upon him. Here one may see, as the law of God and the law of the King may stand together, so the power of the magistrate may very well consist with the power, right and liberty of a private church. And the like he doth by many passages of Scripture which he urgeth; namely Isa. 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, &c. and Esa. 60. 10. Revel. 21. v. 24. the Kings of the earth shall bring their honour to the church, and Rom. 13. 4. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. He addes, since the Scripture speaks thus generally, for thy good, for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well, we must not distin­guish where the Scripture doth not.

Now let us go to New-England, where none will deny but a power and right of churches is maintained sutably to the sense of the dissenting brethren in old England, and yet they ascribe no lesse to the magistrate in matters of religion then Mr. Burroughs. Witnesse the result of a sy­nod at Cambridge in new England, published an. 1646. They say, magistrates must and may command matters of religion that are com­manded in the Word, and forbid things therein [Page 232] forbidden; by the Word meaning the whole Word both in the new and old Testament. In short, they hold for substance what I said be­fore of the two kinds of acts performed in eve­ry private church: one looking immediately at the externall act of the body, and the duties and sins which appear in the carriage of the outward man; and this they say the magistrate looketh at, and commandeth or forbiddeth, in church and out of church; see pag. 15. and therefore they say pag. 40. every church considered as a civil society needeth a coercive power. They say further, that this power is needfull in churches, to curb the obstinate, and restrain the spreading of errours.

Pag. 49. they invalid the example of Uzziah, often alledged by the Romanists and the pres­byterians (though Mr. Gillespie, as I remember, never maketh use of it in his great book) and say, that this act of Azariah thrusting out Uz­ziah was an act of coercion, and so of magi­stracy, and a civil act, which priests and Le­vites were allowed to do, and which they made subservient to that command of God, that none should burn incense but the sons of Aaron. For I believe any officer under the soveraign magi­strate might do the like, in case this later should go about to violate a command of such a high nature; for being an under-magistrate, and in­vested with power of coercion, he obeyeth the greater master, and maketh use of his power to [Page 233] hinder a notable breach of Gods expresse com­mand.

Having thus made good that there is a fair correspondency and concurrence of the right and power of private churches with the magi­strates power over them, I do not see but my principles and those of the dissenting brethren are very agreeable & consonant in the main. It may be a few of them will call that power in e­very particular church ecclesiasticall, which I call a power of magistracy; and they will call excommunication an act of the ecclesiasticall power, which I conceive to be rather an effect of the power of magistracy settled in every particu­lar church. But the difference is not great, since we both make that church-power (call it what you will) a power of jurisdiction and coercion, which must needs be subordinace to the power of the magistrate, since both are of the same kind; and upon that account excommunication is a law of the power of coercion, & so of magistra­cy. In short, whereas some of them will say of all church-censures, that they are the product of a positive divine power, I say they are the result of a naturall civil power, subservient to the divine power in the exercise of the first kind of acts of church-members as such: & sure Mr. Burroughs and the result of the synod in New-England come very near, if not altogether to my sense. For Mr. Burroughs pag. 27. maketh but two powers residing in a private church, one of ad­monishing, [Page 234] perswading, desiring, seeking to convince, the other a power restraining. This latter power I call a power of magistracy, be­cause by the first power men are not outwardly restrained nor rought to outward conformity; and accordingly, excommunication must needs be a product of that restraining power. So that the difference is not at all reall, but nomi­nall.

I find in Musculus, in his common-places concerning magistrates, the same power of ma­gistracy in churches. The passage hath been al­ledged above: there he saith, that that power ex­ercised in churches is notecclesiasticall, but the power of the magistrate.

CHAPTER XXI.

VVE are brought insensibly to know the nature of a Christian church instituted by Christ, which, as I said, is a particular visi­ble one meeting in one place to celebrate the same ordinances, whereof mention is made 1 Cor. 11. v. 18. and chap. 14. v. 23. and Act. 13. [Page 235] v. 42. and 44. In this church the Lord Jesus Christ hath properly instituted the ministry: for Christ hath not instituted a catholick visible church, much lesse a nationall church under one presbytery: but this appellation of church is like the word man, which denotes a nature common to many singulars, and yet is properly said of John or Peter. For as many fountains are not a fountain, and many schools are not a school, and many families are not a family; so many private churches are not properly a church. We shall find below Amyraldus saying most truly, and very pertinently to our argu­ment, that the appellation of church doth not properly belong either to the catholick visible church, or to a nationall church, such as are the English, French, Helvetian churches; which are rather a knot or collection of churches, then a church.

That such a church, made up of many private churches under one presbytery, is not of the in­stitution of Christ, nor ex necessitate praecepti, but of the free pleasure of each private church, who without any violation of the command of Christ, may either remain single, or aggregate it self to other churches under such a presbytery, may be proved by severall arguments.

1. I begin with the testimony of the Rev. As­sembly in their humble advice, who lay no greater stresse of necessity upon it, then that it is lawfull and agreeable to the word of God that such a thing be.

2. If the Lord Jesus Christ had instituted such a presbyterian church, it were fit it should be told us what is a competent number of churches re­quisite to be under a presbytery, whether only three or four, or more, it may be two thousand. If so many, why may not a hundred thou­sand churches be under one presbytery? If so many, why not all private orthodox churches that are dispersed through the world? If a pres­bytery may be over all the catholick visible church, since this presbytery must have a presi­dent and overseer, why may not this overseer be called Bishop? if Bishop, why not Pope, who, in reference to his cardinall-consistory, is the same as this Arch-president is related to his pres­bytery, both being over the whole catholick church?

3. The Lord Jesus Christ hath stated what number may constitute a private church, for where two or three are gathered in his name he hath promised to be in the midst of them; and whatever number of men shall meet in one place, with one accord, in a church-way, to hear the word, it may be denominated a church, and have warrant from Christ to be so called. But our brethren cannot shew us that all the private churches of Scotland under one presby­tery can be called properly a church, being ra­ther a politicall and prudentiall consociation: and could they shew us that such an aggrega­tion is of the institution of Christ, how can they [Page 237] disprove, but that all the private churches in the world may be likewise by the institution of Christ under one presbytery?

4. It being then equally the institution of Christ, that 100000. yea all the churches of the world, as well as four or five thousand (for so many may be in Scotland) should be under one presbytery; were such a presbytery not over all the churches of the world, but only over all the churches of France, Scotland and Holland, and invested with judiciall power from Christ to make lawes authoritatively, to excommunicate, to exauctorate, and inflict censures without any appeal, then this would be such an Imperium in imperto, a jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of others, as our brethren the Scots have raised within the dominion and jurisdiction of the ma­gist rate of Scotland. Such a presbytery, no doubt, might excommunicate as well one of the States of the United Provinces, as once the presbytery of Scotland did the Marquesse of Huntley, who 8. years after, viz. in the year 1616. was re­leased from that excommunication by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in England; for which, I believe, he had as good warrant from Jesus Christ, as the presbytery of Scotland had when they excommunicated him: and so both might by the like warrant excommunicate or absolve any man sentenced in the church of the Abys­sins. And therefore it cannot be thought so mon­strous a thing in the Pope and his Conclave, to [Page 238] excommunicate the Emperour of Germany and the King of France, as they often have done: it being certain that a presbytery in Scotland hath no greater jurisdiction over one of the subjects of the magistrate of Scotland, then the Pope hath over the King of the Romans.

5. A thing very considerable it is, that the holy Scripture, as it often by the word church understandeth a particular church, so sometimes (as 1 Corinth. 11. v. 22.) it meaneth the place where a particular church is assembled: but the Scripture, as it never means by the word church the place that containeth a nationall presbyte­rian church, so neither the nationall church it self.

6. It is no lesse considerable, that a true visi­ble church is not circumscribed by the jurisdicti­on of the magistrate, except that church be also the Commonwealth, and that he that is head of the church be also head of the Commonwealth; as it was with the people of Israel: for members of a particular church need not be dwellers in the same jurisdiction; it being ordinary beyond seas, for particular churches to be made up of members dwelling in severall dominions, in the confines of Geneva, Savoy, Burgundie & France.

7. But is there any command or institution of Christ, that no more churches, or so many churches as are within one magistrates jurisdi­ction should be united under one presbytery? [Page 239] and that that presbytery, power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, should be bounded by the limits of the magistrates territory? If their power doth extend as far as heaven, no doubt it cannot be bounded by the limits of any earthly Prince.

8. This aggregation of many private churches under one presbytery is either voluntary, or commanded by God. If commanded, let our brethren bring us any passage of Scripture pre­scribing a certain measure of judiciary power of the presbytery over private churches. If it be free and voluntary, and every private church may, without violation of divine prescript, either asso­ciate or not associate, then those churches can­not be blamed if they forbear to associate under one presbytery; and in case they should asso­ciate, if they be their own carvers, and do not enstive their liberty to a power that is not of their own tempering and moulding. It is true, a woman hath no tye to marry, no more then a private church to associate; she hath that liber­ty either to subject her self to the power of a husband, or remain single: but she cannot ei­ther before or after she is married put what condition she pleaseth to the power of a hus­band. It is not so with private churches, who have no set rule of obedience due to the power of an ecclesiasticall judicatory.

8. That this power of presbytery over many particular churches is a power of magistracy, [Page 240] either assumed by common consent or delegated from the civil magistrate, may be proved, in that under the heathen Emperours it was a power of consent, every particular church re­serving to it self such a measure of power as they thought fit: and that it was so, we shall see (God willing) when we come to the history of the na­ture of the power that the Christian churches had under the heathen Emperours. But under Christian Emperours no church-judicatory ever had any power but by commission from the ma­gistrate, as we shall likewise shew afterwards. And the diversity of rites and customes of churches, as in fasting, keeping Easter, using divers formes of liturgies, forbidding of appeals from Africa to Rome, though all these churches were under the magistrates jurisdiction, doth shew, that as the supreme magistrate permitted many countreys to enjoy their customs & muni­cipall lawes, so did he the like for rites and cere­monies, which every church took up as they liked best. Which is an argument that there was not such a power as an ecclesiasticall presbyte­ry, binding all private churches to their consti­tutions, and that every church was independent; there being amongst them no other consocia­tion, but only that which consisted in a commu­nion of the same faith and doctrine.

9. As the intensivenesse of the power of a na­tionall church hath ever been, and ought to be still, so much as private churches were willing [Page 241] to yield, for they alwayes reserved to them­selves a full church-power, taking the decrees and constitutions of other churches rather as examples and friendly advises; so the extensive­nesse of that power hath been alwayes limited by the bounds of the magistrate, so that each church was more or lesse independent, as the ma­gistrate over them had a larger or narrower ter­ritory. If so many Kings as Moses & Josua did subdue should turn Christians, so many inde­pendent churches would there be, even 33. for so many were overcome; but should all these 33. Kings be subdued, these 33. Churches would cease to be independent on each other, and in stead of 33. churches depending each on their magistrate, one nationall church should be moulded, of the same extent of power as the ma­gistrate that ruleth over them.

CHAPTER XXII.

THe spirits of men are now a little more calm, and not so eager either at home or abroad, and the quarrell not so fierce with the indepen­dents, as it bath been these 15. years: I having my self been a poor instrument to disabuse some of my country-men, who partly by their mis­understanding, paitly by the false reports and ill will of the common enemy to all goodness & good men, were possessed of very harsh opi­nions and conceits of them, & passed a strange censure upon them, as enemies to all order and discipline, and men of dangerous and perni­cious tenets to all humane societies. The very children amongst them did question whether they were shaped like other men. Amyraldus made a great book of Invectives against them, and turned them into Sodomites, franticks, and enemies of all order and discipline. Salmasi [...]s and Maiesius were no lesse bitter against them. A nationall synod net at Charenton, where A­myraldus had a standing, but no vote, con­demned them. But as this synod condemned them as the councill of Trent did the Lutherans, before they heard them; so did all these authou [...]s I have named fall upon them without mercy, be­fore they had any particular knowledge of them, or any certain information of their sup­posed pernicious manners.

Yet for all that, those very men that wrote so much against them, as they refuted rather their own fancies, then any thing those they call in­dependents believed, so they did handle this matter of the nature and power of the church, and that of the magistrate over it, much to the advantage of those that they made as black as they could; namely Amyraldus, in declaring both his own sense, and that of the ancient church next to the Apostles, hath laid the same ground-work for the parity and independency of churches, as the reverend brethren dissenting from the assembly of Divines have done.

He alledgeth Vignier (a French authour wri­ting above 70. years agone, highly valued, as the truest historiographer that ever put pen to paper, by the most learned and pious Prelat Dr. Usher) in his ecclesiasticall history relating the opinion of Irenaeus, Eusebius and Nicepho­rus, concerning the state of the government of the church soon after the Apostles. The form of the government in this age was almost demo­craticall; for every church had equall power to teach the word of God, to administer the sacraments, to absolve and excommunicate hereticks, and those that led a d'ssolute life, to elect, to call and to ordain ministers, to depose them when occasion required, to erect schools, to call synods, to ask the opinion of others upon doubts and controver sies. I find the centuria­tors of Magdeburg, cent. [...]. cap 7. to have [Page 244] these or equivalent words with little difference, but that they wrote in Latin, and Vignier in French.

Here then we may see our brethrens sense, 1. that every particular church is independent, free to govern it self and to exercise all church acts, not rejecting a consociation with other churches, but such as equals have among them­selves: 2. for the power of synods they ac­knowledge none, nor judiciall authority, on­ly a liberty to admonish, advise and counsell.

In the 8. chapter he hath a long passage, whereof the drift is, 1. that particular churches are no lesse free asunder, then provinces and towns before they join in a confederation; 2. that all aggregation and consociation is as free for churches, as for free towns or cities; 3. that a particular church, for example that of Sau­mur, considered as not united by any volun­tary confederacy to other churches, oweth the same duty of respect to the orders and consti­tutions of the churches of Leyden, Heydelberg and Basil, as to to those of Paris or Rouen; 4. that the power of synods over churches is of the same humane and civil right with the power of a judiciall senatover cities and towns. Pag. 144. he hath these words: The Church and the Commonwealth have some things that seem common, and they may be almost al [...]ke mana­ged, both by ecclesiast call assembl [...]es and by the pow [...]r of the magistrate. How doth this [Page 245] agree with what we have heard him say, that it were an horrible confusion for the church and state to be governed by the same men? Pag. 198. and 199. he speaketh of the authority of synods in the language of our brethren; It is true, that the meer authority of councils ought not to move us to receive a point of religion: the knowledge of the truth of the thing ought to be the chief motive and ground.

But we have him very expresly teaching his scholars and auditors at Saumur, that the ap­pellation of a true visible church doth properly belong to a particular church. I shall cite his words, Disp. de ecclesiae nomine & definitione, thes. 28. in English: I know that a commu­nion, and as it were a confederation of many the like societies, which are associated either by the same use of tongue, or the same form of Commonwealth, or else by the same govern­ment and discipline, is called a particular church: thus we speak of the French, Eng­lish and German churches, as of particu­lar churches, to distinguish them from that uni­versall society of Christians which compre­hends all nations that bear the name of Chri­stians: but, as we said before, the word church is not proper to the society of all Christians, as it is to the particular assemblies of Christians; so that consequently we say that the word church is not to be said in the like manner of a consociation of many particular churches. Let [Page 246] then that communion which is between the churches of France be said to be a church, and that the church is a confederation of many churches; for if taken according to the use of the holy Scripture, St. Paul calleth the severall particular churches which were in Achaia, not by the name of the church of Achaia, or the Achaian church, but of the churches of Achaia. A passage very considerable, which force of turth hath drawn from the mouth of the greatest enemy to the brethren: for their great­est advocate could not say more in justification of what they have alwayes urged about the na­ture of the church, but could never be heard till of late; viz. that there was no true proper church but a particular church; that therefore a presbyterian nationall church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery, is not properly said to be a church. I am of opinion that the Roman church upon that account is ve­ry improperly called a church, but most impro­perly a t [...]ue church: for if it hardly deserveth the name of a church, how can it be called a true one, at least morally, though it may be metaphysically; it being a consociation of er­roneous and hereticall churches? for if every pri­va [...]e church within the Roman communion is so disfigured, that I do not think it deserveth the name of a church; how improperly then is a systern made up of those particular churches stiled a church? And so I conceive that the que­stion [Page 247] about the truenesse of the Romish church, which hath so puzzled men, may be easily re­solved.

I have but one passage more of Amyraldus to alledge, which a man could hardly believe to be the language of a professed enemy to the cause of the brethren. For if they should state their own opinion, of the power and independency of churches, they cannot use more significant words then those of Amyraldus, who in his disputation de concil. author. thes. 28. saith, that private churches ought to retain their full right, li [...]erty and power untoucht, specially in matters of great concernment, as points of faith, not submitting slavishly their own judgements to synods, but expecting that synods should de­fine and decree nothing till they have had the advice and approbation of particular churches. This is the passage in Latin: Alibi dixi­mus, pulcherrimum & saluberrimum esse ea­rum ecclesiarum institutum, quae concillorum decreta ad res magni moment [...], qualia sunt dogmata fidet, pertinentia rata esse noluerint, nisi prius consultis synodis & ecclesiis particu­lar [...]bus, quarum quaeque symbolam suam ad veritatis cluc'dationem conferat.

Salmasius followeth the steps of Amyraldus, or rather Amyraldus of him, for Amyraldus wrote last. He is very large in his apparatus ad libros de primatu: and I should be tedious to the reader, to set down here all that he hath [Page 248] handsomely stated about the nature of a church. I will only quote two pages, which are 265. and 266. The substance of his discourse is comprehended under these 4 or 5 heads. 1. That all churches by right are equall in power and dignity, and are independent. 2. That the con­sociation under the heathen Emperours was voluntary and by consent. 3. That under Chri­stian Emperours a consociation was introduced by humane right; so that what was at first by free and mutuall consent, came afterwards un­der the Christian Emperours to be of humane institution and constitution. 4. That the unity of churches consisted not in an united collection of private churches, but in an agreement in faith and doctrine; for such an union there is betwixt the Helvetian, Belgick and French churches, who agreeing in the same faith and doctrine, do notwithstanding differ in discipline; so that these churches may be called independent each on the other, & yet they keep an union and com­munion among themselves. No other commu­nion and independency do the reverend dis­senting brethren admit and practise, either a­mong themselves, or with the presbyterian churches both at home and abroad. 5. The fifth head is, that a consociation of many particular churches joyned with the same band of disci­pline, and under the direction, counsell, advice, not the command or judiciall power of any sy­nod or presbytery, doth much conduce to the [Page 249] keeping the unity of faith, the band of charity, and the communion of saints. In the same place, and many others throughout his apparatus, he saith, that the communication betwixt particular churches was voluntary, and by way of coun­sell, every church reserving to themselves full right and power as to those acts of their disci­pline, and the acts of binding and loosing; so that every church had power to take cognizance of any fact and crime committed in their body, to censure and excommunicate them, or recon­cile them again, without any appeal to other churches or synods, except it were to beg their friendly intercession; for so they were wont to consult and entreat Bishops, and namely him of Rome, to review the sentence, repairing to him as to an umpire, not a judge, to disannull or evacuate the judgement: which makes the Romanists take those applications to the Bishop of ROme, as an acknowledgement of supre­macy over all the churches.

To these authorities Iwill adde that of learn­ed and moderate Spanhemius, who did not use invectives as others, but arguments and rea­sons as good as he could; yet in my opinion the good man mistaketh much in his Epistle to Da­vid Buchanan, not so much through ignorance of the right, as of the fact: yet in the 55. page he hath these words, which are much to the advan­tage of the brethren. A particular church hath no power at all over another, but they [Page 250] are all collateral, and of equall right and au­thority.

Let us now hear other advocates of the bre­thren, before the word independency came to be given to Protestants in the world. The first is learned Amesius, in his first book of the marrow of Divinity chapt. [...]0. where after he hath in the 17, 18, 19, 20. and 26 sections, spoken of the parity and equality of particular churches in right and power, in the 27. section he tells us what consociation of particular churches may be admitted: these be his words; Particular churches may, yea ought to have a mutuall confederation and consociation amongst them in classes and synods, that by a common consent they may be helpfull one to another with as much commodity as may be, chiefly in things of greater concernment: but this combination doth not constitute a new frame of church, nei­ther ought it in any sort to take away that li­berty and power which Christ hath left to his churches, since this form is only usefull by way of direction.

John Mestrezat, a very learned orthodox Di­vine, lately deceased minister of Paris, goeth upon the same grounds with Amesius in his book of the church written in French; and his testi­mony is most considerable, because being a French-man, he could not know or foresee, as Amesius perchance might, any such plea in England about right or power of churches ag­gregated. [Page 251] It would be too long here to set down his own words at large. For those that under­stand French, they may see specially the 1 chap. of the 3. book, where he saith that all power to do any church acts is placed in the particular church; that all church-priviledges and pro­mises were made and granted unto, and in consideration of a particular church assembled in one place. As for aggregation and consocia­tion of churches, he holds it not to be grounded upon any pattern or command from Scripture, or even from a judiciall power given by Christ to classes, synods & presbyteries over particular churches, but meerly assumed prudentially for mutuall preservation against the common ene­my, and for keeping communion, as of saints, so of churches; that those church judicatories were set up not for conscience sake, or in obe­dience to any prescript of Christ, but for orders sake; as the reverend man wrote to me but a few weeks before he died.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THe most convincing proof for the consi­stency of the right and power of particular churches with the magistrates power, in order­ing, settling and commanding the publick Di­vine worship of the Nation, is the example of the Commonwealth of the Jewes; wherein we are informed of three main things, which taken into consideration, will clear all doubts about the right and power of particular churches, and the magistrates jurisdiction in matters of reli­gion and publick worship. 1. That in the Com­monwealth of Israel, at their first institution, there were particular churches throughout all the land, near every families dwelling-place, called synagogues. 2. That these churches were independent both from any of their own, & of the Priests or Levites judicatories. 3. That the while the magistrates power and jurisdiction re­mained whose, entire and undivided, over all persons, and in all causes and matters, particu­larly in ordering, settling and commanding the publick nationall worship of God.

For the first, that such churches were institu­ted in the land of Canaan, we have a very ex­presse proof Leviticus 23. v. 1, 2, and 3. Speak unto the children of Israel, &c. six dayes shall work be done; but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation, ye shall do no work therein, it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your habitations. 1. We have here a convoca­tion and an holy one every sabbath: 2. near every families dwelling place, at that distance which is called in the Gospell a sabbath-days journey; and to travell a sabbath-days jour­ney was equivalent to go as far as the house of convocation, which was esteemed a fulfilling of the command Exod. 16. v. 29. abide every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. For he that went no further then the place of convocation or meeting, to at­tend on the ordinances, where they use to tarry from morning to evening, obeyed that com­mand, let no man go out of his place on the se­venth day. For how could they keep a sabbath-day holy, without an holy convocation? and how could that be frequented, and they not stir from their own place, except by not going out of his place be meant, not going any whither but to the place of convocation? For they could not keep the sabbath without a holy con­vocation kept near every ones dwelling. Now that this convocation cannot be meant of natio­nall and festivall meetings, is evident for those [Page 254] were appointed but thrice in the year, and far from every ones dwelling-place, and after the building of the Temple they were celebrated ei­ther before the Tabernacle, or in the fore-court of the Temple. Now had they been bound to re­pair to Jerusalem every sabbath-day, it would have been against the command, not to stir from their own places on that day.

These convocations or synagogues were par­ticular churches assembled in a temple or house, called also schools or colledges, where Pro­phets and their sons or scholars dwelt and taught daily: but on the sabbath-day they had a more solemn meeting of all those that dwelt near, for prayer, expounding of the law, exhor­tations, conferences; the main action being per­formed by the Rabbies: yet the disciples were not silent, but sate at their feet, asking questions, and hearing their answers and resolutions: sometimes a new comer in might interpose, as we see in the example of Jesus Christ, Luke the fourth, who being unknown, had the priviledge to expound the Scripture, and to ask questions and give answers; so had St. Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles chap. 13 v 15.

But to speak more particularly of the place, the teachers, and the matter and form of wor­ship in those places of meeting or synagogues; I say, first one may trace the place in the old and new Testament. In the 26. Psalm David saith, he will blesse the Lord in the congregations, and [Page 255] Psal. 68. v. 26. blesse ye God in the congrega­tion: which doubtlesse ought to be understood of those convocations in temples, which are called synagogues Psal. 74. v. 8. they have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land. Which texts make it good, that such places for an holy convocation were erected through all the land. Calvin upon the place saith, that the people met in syngogues every sabbath-day, to read and expound the Prophets, and call upon God by prayer. The 29. Psalme v. 9. doth not obscurely mention them, for the Psalmist relates that while the works of God sounded by haile, rain and thunder, the faithfull, not only under a shelter of stones and timber, but of Gods gracious provi­dence and protection, did attend the service of God. Of this House and Temple David also speaketh Psal. 87. v. 2. The Lord loveth the gates of Sion, more then all the dwellings or tents of Iacob. The sense of which words para­phrastically I think to be this: although God gra­ced with his blessing and presence those convo­cations which at first were kept under tents in the wildernesse, yet he is much more taken with that glorious manifestation of his between the cherubins, whereby God setteth out the Lord Jesus Christ. Also Salomon, Ecclesiastes 5. v. 1. and 2. speaketh of these houses or meetings, when he warneth men to be more ready to hear then to speak in the house of God; intimating, that there was a freedome for the faithfull in [Page 256] those convocations and synagogues, more then one, to speak; and besides that there were no o­ther sacrifices performed in them, but those of preaching, praying and thanksgiving.

This house of convocation was also a place to train up disciples, called the sons of the Pro­phets, which were indifferently of all tribes; and therefore by the way, the ministers of the Gos­pell, that do not succeed the Priests and Le­vites, but those Prophets, who had neither ordi­nation nor jurisdiction, cannot pretend other call or power then such as these sons of the Pro­phets had So then these house or places for con­vocation were also colledges and schools; and therefore Philo in the life of Moses calleth them both [...] and [...], houses of prayer and of learning: of which you have mention 2 Kings 6. v. 1. where the sons of the prophets multiplying, and their house, temple or auditory being too little, they enlarged it; and chap. 22. v. 14. Huldah the prephetesse is said to dwell in Bamischnah, in a colledge or school of learning. So from 1 Samuel 19. v. 18. and 20. one may gather, that Samuel, being the chief Rabbi and Prophet, having many disciples un­der him, had his house of oration, school or Col­ledge at Naioth in Ramah, where he did not on­ly teach publickly upon sabbath [...] ayes, but also instructed upon other days his disciples or young prophets, called his sons, as appeareth by the 20. verse; except by prophecying be meant ut­tering [Page 257] marvellous things of Gods greatnesse, goodnesse, providence: for the ordinary gift and charge of the prophets was, not so much to declare hidden and foretell future things, as to expound the law, and to exhort the people, and pray with them; in which sense John Baptist is called by Jesus Christ a propher, who yet never wrote nor uttered any prophecies; and Exod. 7. v. 4. Aaron is called the prophet of Moses, be­cause he was his interpreter to the people. And the great number of those prophets sheweth ma­nifestly, that their ordinary employment was to do what the prophets of the new Testament do, to exhort, teach, comfort-rebuke; no lesse number being required for that work under the old then under the new. In the 1 Kings ch. 18. when Jezabel did seek to destroy the Prophets, Obadiah hid 100. in a cave; and in the 2. book chap. 2. v. 16 the sons of the Prophets sead of their own body 50. men to seek after El jah. Sure there was no need of so many to foretell future things, when one of a 1000. Prophets might undergo that charge well enough, to satisfy all the people of the mind of God concerning future things, wherewith but few of the people need to be acquainted; but all the people had need of teachers and instructers in the law of Moses, and that in a considerable number, for 1000. had not been enough to instruct the fourth part of the people in the ordinary way of prophe­cying, that is teaching and exhorting; for the [Page 258] Rabbins say that there were 480. such houses of convocation or prayer, otherwise called syna­gogues, in Jerusalem. There is mention made of two houses which were famous, one at Bethel, the other at Jericho, whither the sons of the Prophets repaired to Elisha. They were frequented not only every sabbath-day and new moon, for praying with the people of the neighbourhood, as appeareth by 2 Kings v. 22. but also for teaching their disciples, and resolving any that should come to them upon any doubt: whither it is likely David did go Psal. 73. v. 16. when being inwardly per­plexed with distractions, he could find no set­tlement, till he went to the sanctuary of God, to be instructed better then he was; where by the sanctuary doubtless is meant such a house of convocation or school. And in the 27. Psalme, that one thing that David desired of the Lord was, no doubt, to have communion with God and with the faithfull people in the Temple or house of prayer, whereto he resorted every sab­bath; for it is not likely he understood this of being partaker of the legall rites & sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem, which was not yet built.

What was the form and matter of the exer­cises in those houses the Scripture mentioneth not: only we gather by what the Prophets of Baal did 1 Kings 18. v. 26. that likewise the Prophets of God in those synagogues or houses of convocation did pray from morning untill [Page 259] noon, and then till evening taught by catechi­sing and expounding; for in the 29. verse the word prophesving is equivalent to teaching and instructing. And Samuel 1. book c. 12. v 23. ma­keth two parts of his propheticall office, viz. to pray, and teach: God forbid that I should sin against God, in ceasing to pray for you; but I will teach you.

Now as those prophets had no dependence on the Priests and Levites, no more then the houses of convocation where they taught; so neither do we read that there was any consocia­tion of all these convocations into one nationall church, under some church-judicatory made up of Priests and Levites, or that they had any de­pendence on the Sanedrim or state-court, pre­scribing them any orders how to govern them­selves; only they were not to teach and expound ought but the law, whereof the magistrate was the keeper and guardian, nor to thwart the du­ties of the publick worship commanded, such as were the killing of the passeover at set times, the appearing of the males three times in the year at the place that God was to chuse, and performing all the sacrifices, oblations and rites enjoyned: and so far were the convocations depending on the magistrate. For in the first institution we do not read that these convocations or syna­gogues, or those that were over them, were or needed to be invested with any jurisdiction, but were like schools of learning, whose masters and [Page 260] teachers were also like Plato, Zeno, Aristotle, over the schools in Greece, who had scholars men of ripe years and discretion, that with a withing fulmission embraced their sayings and precepts; so that the Prince or Dr. of the school needed not any restraining or coercive disci­pline to order them. And indeed it is very like­ly that those heathenish schools of Philoso­phans had their first rise and ouginall from those [...] wish schools. But that each of those convo­cations where Prophets taught and expounded were independent from other convocations, sa­ving only so far as they were all members of the same Commonwealth, will appear anone, when we enquire into the nature of these con­vocations, when they went currently under the name of synagogues, and all jointly were not one Commonwealth in one countrey, but lived dispersed: for then every lynagogue was sui Iuris, and governed it self; though some R [...]ma­nists would perswade us that many synagogues were aggregated under one Archisynagogue or chief [...]; which is a great mistake, for some synagogues had sometimes many Archisyna­gogues. It is true, we read in the Theodosian code of Patriarchs of the J [...]wes, lib. 8. tit. 18. de Iudae [...]s coelicolis, or Samaritanis; but those Patriarchs were not over any matter concern­ing law or religion, but were only publick trea­surers of mony levied for the poor, for building of synagogues, & the like. 'Tis true also that the [Page 261] nature of those synagogues being changed, as long as the Senat at Jerusalem had any repute, other synagogues did defer very much to it, re­questing letters of advice from them; but sub­mitted not to any command, as from a superiour to an inferiour, as we gather by Act. 9. v. 2. and 3. and ch. 28. v. 21.

But to follow the history of these convoca­tions a little farther: their independency is clear­ly to be seen when the faithfull people lived un­der idolatious Kings, as under Jeroboam and his successours; for they could not depend on the Sanedum at Jerusalem, since it was a capitall crime to appeal or repair about any mat­ter to Jerusalem, or attend at those solemn meetings enjoyned by the law of Moses three times in the year, and every seventh year: and therefore to keep themselves free from idolatry, they frequented as much as they could those places of convocation, as appeareth by a notable example 2 Kings 4. v. 22. For when the Suna­mitish woman desired an asse to ride on to E­lisha, her husband told her, wherefore will you go to him to day? it is neither new moon nor sabbath.

The greatest part of these houses of convoca­tion (for some of them did not much alter from their first institution, but remained schools and nothing else) in processe of time did not pro­perly degenerate, but changed their nature, and lasted longer thus then in their first institution, [Page 262] and that begun from the time that they were led into captivity, and so continued under the Baby­lonians, Persians, Grecians, and then the Ro­mans: for whereas at first they needed no other discipline then the law of their nation, which re­ceived vigour, strength and protection from their own magistrate, who was a friend and protectour of their law, religion and liberty; when afterwards they lived under those that were no good friends to their lawes and reli­gion, and yet were suffered to enjoy them both, being dispersed they were fain to alter the frame of their assemblies and convocations, and make of them so many little Commonwealths endowed with judiciall authority, yet retaining still some prime face of a church or convocation, and be­sides more mixture of ranks of men: for not on­ly Prophets were governours and members, but also Priests, Levites and elders of the people, and all matters were handled as in a court of magi­stracy; and yet reading and expounding of the law was not forgot, as we see Act. 13. v. 27. and ch. 15. v. 21. Nor was it grown out of use for scholars or young Prophets to sit at the feet of the Rabbins, and receive instructions, as St. Paul at the feet of Gamaliel Act. 22. v. 3. and Marie at the feet of the Lord Jesus; or for the young Prophets to ask questions of the old, as 1 Cor. 14. v. 29. And as the form and matter handled did alter, so also the Prophets and teachers did change their names, and were called Doctours, [Page 263] Rabbies, Lawyers, Masters, Scribes and Wise among the Jews. And such were the synagogues in the time of Christ, which Mr. Gillespie is not certain whether he ought to call churches or civil courts: yet he is rather of opinion that be­fore the 30. year of Christ, when they had power to judge of capitall matters, they were rather civil courts then churches; but after the 30. year of Christ, this judgement of causes for life and death being taken from them, then they were to be called churches or ecclesiasticall assemblies. Which is a very frivolous exception as ever was devised, and sheweth the weak­nesse of his cause. For is a court more or lesse civil, because it hath or hath not the judgement of capitall causes? By that reason most courts in England should be ecclesiasticall, as the court of Exchequer, court Baron, and court Let.

But the nature of those convocations, syna­gogues or particular churches of the Jews, having been for many hundred years, since they were carried first into captivity, such, that they were invested not only with a faculty to per­form duties and acts of worship to God, but al­so with a power of magistracy; when a great many of them from synagogues of the Jewes were after turned into churches of Christians, they retained the same constitution and quali­fication in performing church-duties, and exer­cising power of magistracy; which sometimes [Page 264] was assumed by the consent of the members, sometimes delegated by the Emperours. For as the Jewes began to be the first professours of Christian religion, so the first churches were synagogues of the Jewes converted to Christian religion: but yet before the conversion of an en­tire synagogue, those that were Christians con­cealed themselves for fear of the rest, and yet did not depart, but when they were persecuted, or thrust out of the synagogue. So that some synagogues, for some Christians that were a­mong them, were called churches, as we may see if we compare Gal. 1. v. 13. with Act. 22. v. 19: for in one place St. Paul saith that he per­secuted in every synagogue those that professed the name of Christ; in the other, that he did per­secute the church. And Act. 18. v. 19. it is like that either the greatest part, or the whole syna­gogue was a Christian church, though it re­tained still the name of a synagogue: And no doubt at Antioch the whole synagogue pro­fessed Christ, since they durst openly take the name of Christians.

But the words of Christ Iohn 16. v. 2. they shall put you out of the synagogue, shew, that sy [...]agogues of the Iewes should become Chri­stian churches, and that those that professed the name of Christ, or at least believed in him se­cretly for fear of the Iewes, were not to depart, that by their means the whole synagogue might be wonne: and therefore the Lord Iesus Christ [Page 265] takes this expulsion for an injury done to them in the foregoing verse, These things have I spoken to you, that ye be not offended. Had not the Lord Iesus a mind to make of these syna­gogues churches, he would have bidden those that were Christians amongst them to flee from them, and go from them, as he biddes his people flee out of Babylon. And indeed we do not read that Crispus, chief ruler of the synagogue, and other believing Iewes, did forsake the syna­gogue; or that when the whole synagogue was converted, it did presently loose the name of a synagogue, but kept it, as we see Iames 2. v. 2. If there come into the synagogue, and Hebr. 10. v. 22. The very heathens did not put a distin­ction for a good while betwixt Iewes & Chri­stians; for Suetonius saith that Claudins did re­strain the Iewes, who by the impulsion of Christ did raise tumults. So that in expelling the Iews, the Christians were comprehended; for it is said Act. 18. v. 2. that Aquila and Priscilla, though Christians, were commanded to depart from Rome. And as the Christians suffered as Iewes, so what priviledges they enjoyed, it was a grant unto the Iewes: and as in the 9. of Clau­dius the Iewes, and with them the Christians, were banished; so in the first year of his Empire the same liberty that was granted unto the Iews, did also belong to the Christians.

So then the synagogues were the first ori­gine and platform of Christian churches, and [Page 266] after those synagogues the gentils converted did modell their churches, retaining the same power of magistracy as the synagogues had, as Mr. Lightfoot doth very well observe; yea in their way of teaching following the Prophets in their synagogues, which were also schools of learning, as namely when they spoke by turns, and the younger Prophets submitted to the judge­ments of the elder, 1 Cor. 14. v. 29, 30, &c. Therefore since the churches of the Christians were but synagogues, changing somewhat the doctrine, but not at all the discipline, we must conceive of all churches and their acts of power as of synagogues, and of church-ex­communication as of Jewish excommunica­tion or putting out of the synagogue; that of Christians being no more a law or ordinance of Christ then that of the Iews was a law and or­dinance of Moses: for neither of them was. For it never came to be in use among the Iewes, till they took it up upon the want of their own judges and magistrates, by consent and by a confederate discipline, in [...]e [...] of magistracy. The Christians, imitatours of the Iewes, and who had the law and the covenants, yea the Lord Iesus Christ from them, did also take up excommunication upon the same grounds as they did. Bullingerus in an Epistle to Dathenus an. 1531. tells us, it was thought so by Zwin­glius; the Apostles lived under a heathenish magistrate, who yet did not punish wicked [Page 267] actions; but that the church might infl [...]ct some kind of penalty, they took up admon [...]tion and exclusion, because they could not make use of the sword, which was not committed to them: and this was the cause of bringing in excom­munication. Now that the Christian magi­strate may punish wicked deeds, there is no fur­ther need of excommunication.

CHAPTER XXIV.

HAving hitherto made good that there is no such thing as a government in the hands of [Page 268] church-office [...]s distinct from that of the magi­st [...]e, and proved the nullity of that distinction [...] [...]call & civil jurisdiction by reason, Scripture and the example of the Iewes; it fol­loweth we should prove that since the time that the [...] church began, whether under the h [...] the [...]or under Christian [...]mperours, it was not governed by a jurisdiction distinct from that of magi [...]acy; and that neither [...]he h [...]hen no [...] the Christian Emperours ever knew any [...] as an ecclesiasticall power not sub­ [...] to the magistrates power; yea that the [...] did but in words challenge a power [...] from that of the magistrate, and that [...] they made but one of two, and ac­knowledged that it could not be so much as [...] they should be exercised asunder: and [...] reason that the learned of th [...]m, as [...] and others, maintain that one of them [...] subordinate to the other, er [...]ing on­ [...] [...], that they subordinate [...]e civil to the [...].

[...] then being converted into [...] churches, and also turned over to [...] same jurisdiction of confederate [...] power of magistracy assumed by [...] the members of each synagogue, yet [...] [...]ewish synagogues had been alwayes [...] [...]ccuted, and had enjoyed their confe­ [...] d [...]cipline for the most part by edicts from [...] magistrate under which they lived, [Page 269] that was the reason that they bad a greater mea­sure of freedom to ex [...] their confed [...] are [...]ci­pline and acts of coercive a [...] [...] dicall [...]wer over all persons of their own body and reli­gion, and in all causes, except in causes capi­tall, and the medling with any thing whereby to free themselves from paying taxes & [...] But the Christian churches, though mo [...]ed after the pattern of the Iewish synagegues, being continually either under perse [...]o [...], or in rear of it, could not put forth those acts of coercive [...] ­risdiction, unlesse it were a putting [...]ut of the congregation, which thing may be done without much noise: but inflicting b [...]dly or p [...]cu [...]ia [...]y punishment could not [...]e w [...]l made use of, without discovering too much and laying them­selves open to persecution. Besides that the mem­bers of Christian churches, being not members of the same notion, and therefore led by the on­ly interest of and love to religion, a coerc [...]e jurisdiction was nothing so necessary, nor was it any thing so frequent to put out of churches as out of synagogues: so that the differences be­tween church members being rather differences in their judgements then any want of chari [...], that magistracy assunted at first by the sy [...]a­gogues when afterwards it was devolved to the Christian churches, looked rather like an a [...] ­trators judgement and counsell. Yet still by that modified magistracy they decided and com­posed not only matters of faith, but also all dif­ferences [Page 270] in matter of wrong, either in goods, mo­ny or good name, between brother and brother; setting over, besides the most eminent that la­boured in the word and doctrine, some of lesse eminency among them, to decide differences and controversies of another nature. And no doubt but St. Paul points at this practise 1 Cor. 6. vers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and 7. a notable place, which yet was never pressed to the utmost meaning. For

1. St. Paul there enjoyneth the Corinthians, rather then to go to law, to appoint some men besides those that labour in the word, to decide all matters that one man might have against another.

2. He giveth the same measure of power in settling matters of religion or faith, and in com­posing differences that are usually judged in the magistrates court: for learned Diodati by [...], matter or businesse, saith we must un­derstand civil businesse; and the Dutch Anno­tations say that this matter is worldly businesse. So that St. Paul makes the church-power no more ecclesiasticall then civil: for the same con­federate discipline gave power to ministers to preach, and administer the sacraments, as did to chosen men of their body to compose friendly, by their wisdome and authority, such differences as are usually the matter of all courts of magi­stracy.

3. The words of the Apostle, Do ye not know [Page 271] that the sa [...]nts shall judge the world? I conceive to be equivalent to these; Seeing ye do now live under a heathen and persecuting magistrate, and yet there arise such contentions and debates a­mongst you, as are judged for the most part in secular courts, with the breach of charity, and losse of time and mony, specially the judges being no friends to your persons and religion; your best way is to have them taken up friendly by Christian arbitrators of your own churches, untill God at length, after you have long suf­fered, be pleased to set over you a Christian magistrate, to whom you may repair when such differences arise amongst you.

It is observable, that the holy Apostle, when he saith, is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you? &c. and, set them to judge who are least esteemed, speaketh ironically, implying that were there no wise men amongst you, such as you must appoint, yet the matter they are set over is not so knotty and hard, but that men the least esteemed amongst you, so that they were honest men, might well understand and decide it.

Reverend Mr. Lightfoot, upon the closure of the fifth chapter and the beginning of the sixth of the first to the Corinthians, is of opinion that this is the meaning of that place: these be his words; Afterwards to take the Corinthians off from going to infidel judges, he requireth them to decide the matter themselves, till the [Page 272] time come that the saints shall judge the world; that is, till the time come that there shall be a Christian magistracy.

Origen upon the 21. of Exodus Homil. 11. makes it clear that this is the meaning of the A­postle, by telling us the practise of churches in his time: Principes populi & presbyteri plebis debent omni hora populum judicarc, semper & sine intermissione sedere in judicio, dirimere lites, reconciliare dissidentes, in gratiam re­cordare discordes; The heads and elders of the people ought every hour to judge the people, alwayes and without intermission to sit in judgement, decide controversies, reconcile those that have differences, and make those friends that are at variance. Here is magistracy assu­med by church-members, when, by their con­sent, elders and wise men are appointed to take up such differences in a friendly way, and such controversies betwixt brother & brother, as other­wise were to be adjudged before secular judges. I should ask here our presbyterian brethren, by what power, ecclesiasticall or civil, were from metters decided and judged in Origens time? and in case by that assumed power of ma­g [...]acy any one had been either put by from the communion, or put out of the assembly; what needed he to have recourse to the ecclesiasticall power, when the other power was sufficient to have do [...] it? yea when the ecclesiasticall power could never do it without a power of [Page 273] magistracy? These be the words of Anton. de Dominis lib. 5. cap. 2. without a lay-power we can doe nothing; we cannot by our eccle­siasticall power put out, take off, and ex­pell.

The same Origen, in his 1. book against Cel­sus, speaketh of that magistracy assumed by con­sent and mutuall agreement, called by him [...]. There be some appointed to enquire into the manners and wayes of their living who frequent churches; that so they may keep those off from coming into their assembly, that stain their lives by foul and unworthy actions, and admit with all readiness those that are otherwise, and make them daily better.

Though by their power of magistracy as­sumed by consent they might put out any one that was already a church-member, yet it seemeth it was not the settled practise in Ori­gens time; but only, as to admit good men, so not to receive into their society those that they did not know to be such. No excommunication was then in use with him: for as the admitting a good man into church-fellowship is no abso­lution, so the not receiving a bad man into the church is no excommunication. This is con­firmed by Justin Martyr in his 2. Apologie, where he saith, No man else is permitted to re­ceive that aliment called with us the Eucha­rist, but he that believes our doctrine is true, and hath been washed by the washing for remis­sion [Page 274] of sins. For there Justin speaketh not of church-members; only he saith, that heathens and unbaptised men are not to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or to have any part in those mysteries. Of the custome of excluding church-members, I confesse we read in Tertul­lian and Cyprian, answerable to the Niddui and Cherem of the Jewes.

Tertullian, in the 2. chapter of his Apologe­tick, speaketh of the like confederate discipline or power of magistracy taken up by consent; and in the 39. chapter he maketh an enumera­tion of all the parts of that discipline.

I should now have done with Origen, in­tending next to alledge Ambrose confirming what Origen saith concerning the practise of the church, agreeable to the counsell and com­mand of St. Paul; only I will take notice farther from Origen, of the face of the church in his time, and of the power assumed then by the Christians. Celsus, a great Philosopher, and ene­my to the Christians, did accuse them that they had a discipline quite different from the lawes of the Romans, that they kept private conventi­cles, and there had a particular secret covenant, law and discipline, no lesse repugnant to the lawes of the Emperour, then if they had been in open rebellion. And indeed even among the Grecians these private meetings were some­times forbidden, although the state were nothing concerned in them, they being to no other end [Page 275] but to perform some religious service. For Cor­nelius Nepos, that Alcibiades, was condemned to dye for performing some religious worship, it may be sacrifice at his own house. Origen an­swereth, by alledging an example very fit to our purpose, and applyable to the nature of the power that Christians and private churches do exercise under a persecuting magistrate. He bringeth an example of a stranger living among the Scythians, who must either conform himself to the ungodly lawes of that nation, or be a law unto himself. This same stranger, saith Origen, cannot be said to violate the lawes of the Scy­thians, if he doth not worship Statues, but doth privately worship the true God, and in a right manner, and if he be a law unto himself. This is the case about the nature of the power exerci­sed by churches, and an answer to that so much urged objection, that the Christian churches have been long without a magistrate, therefore governed by a power distinct from that of the magistrate. For

1. Origen implyeth, that if the lawes of the Scythians had been good and tolerable, that then this stranger had been obliged to obey them.

2. The lawes of the magistrate being ungod­ly, this stranger living in his dominion must do his best, that he, his family and adherents be a law and a magistrate unto themselves, and per­form by a dictate of conscience what the magi­strate [Page 276] was to enjoin and command. Here none will say, that this stranger, living among the Scythians, governeth himself by a power di­stinct from that of the magistrate: for so Philo­sophers and Mathematicians, who were often forbidden in Rome, and banished, yet lurking in corners, and having private conventicles, might likewise be said to be governed by a power Philosophicall & Mathematicall, distinct from that of the magistrate; and a sonne, to whom God hath given the grace not to hearken to a bad father, must not be said to govern him­self by a power distinct from the paternall, for indeed such a son is a father to himself. The like may we say of private churches under a perse­cuting magistrate, who are fain to settle a magi­stracy by consent of all the members of the churches; as the synagogues were faign to be used when they lived under a magistrate that was not of their own nation and religion: then they per­formed by a confederate discipline, what the magistrate was to enjoin and command them. The confession of Basilartic. 6. hath a notable saying, speaking of the duty of magistrates to propagate the Gospell as they are magistrates: This duty was enjoyned a magistrate of the gentils; how much more ought it to be com­mended to the Christian magistrate, being the Vicar of God? If then the heathen magistrate fails of his duty, in not propagating the Gospell, those that live under him, and are better minded, [Page 277] ought to supply the part of the magistrate in that particular; and yet in doing of that they do but perform their own duty and businesse: like as a master leading his horse down the hill, his man being out of the way, doeth both his own businesse and that of his man, and both em­ployeth his own strength in guiding an unruly horse, and supplieth that of his man: or (which expresseth more lively the thing in hand) as the Duke of Somerset, in training up Prince Edward in the true religion, did both do his own duty and that of Henry the 8. his father; who being wanting to his duty in shewing his power & authority to have his son brought up in the true Protestant religion, Somerset, Cranmer and others were not to be wanting to theirs; and yet were not to act by a power di­stinct from the power of the King: for if so, then when ever a power is exercised rightly, and yet against an unlawfull command of a superiour, we had need to give a new name to that power, and there would be as many kinds of power, as duties to be performed.

Having done with Origen, I come to Am­brose, whom I was to alledge upon the 1. of Timothy, relating to the places of St. Paul and Origen, and to the power of magistracy as­sumed by churches. There he teacheth the custom both of the synagogues & of Christian churches, of having elders that composed, in stead of the magistrate, controversies arising amongst [Page 278] church-members; saying that first synagogues, and afterwards churches had elders, without whose advice there was nothing done in the church; and wondreth that in his time, which was about the year 370, such men were out of use: which he thinks came by the negligence, or rather pride of some Doctors, who thought it was beneath them to be esteemed the lesse in the church, as S. Paul saith of them, while they are to decide controversies, not as judges invested with a coercive power, but only as arbitrators and umpires.

But the true cause why these elders ceased, which he wisheth had been still continued, he mentioneth not: but the true cause is, when the magistrate, that was for above 300. years hea­thenish, became Christian, these arbitrators and elders ceased in great part, at least they were more out of churches then in churches, and in stead of them the Emperours created judges, which yet retained much of the nature of those whereof Origen and Ambrose speak, and which were invested (as most of the Lawyers affirm, as Cujacius for one, & with them my Rev. Father, in his book de Monarchia temporal, and in his Hyperaspistes lib. 3. cap. 15.) not with a coer­cive jurisdiction, but, as they term it, audience: hence comes the Bishops and Deanes and Chapters Audit. However such arbitrators sate in a court, and were chosen by the Christian Emperours, and were not members, as before, [Page 279] ever since St. Pauls time, chosen by the mem­bers of that church where the contention did arise betwixt brother and brother: and at that time it was not thought a violation of the com­mand of St. Paul, if a wronged brother had gone to secular judges, because they were not infi­dels, but Christians, faithfull, and saints, as the Apostle termeth them, 1 Cor. 6. 2. therefore it was free for any lay-man or other, either to re­pair to the Audit of the Bishop, or to the secular judge. Which custome Ambrose doth not like so well, as when Jewes and Christians were obliged by the law of their discipline to have controversies decided by their own elders. Certain it is that these elders, (though they were not, as Ambrose wisht they had been, in his time arbitrators in those churches whereof they were members) kept that office a long time un­der Christian Emperours, but with more autho­rity and dignity, because they were countenan­ced by the Emperours their masters. We have them mentioned pretty late, even in Theodo­sius, Honorius and Arcadius time: for in one law they enjoin that ordinary judges should decide the contentions between Jewes and Gen­tils, not their own elders or arbitrators. There­upon it is worth considering, that that title which in the Theodosian Code is de Episcopali audien­tia, in the Justinian Code is de Episcopali judi­cio: a main proof, that these judgements in e­piscopall courts had much still of the nature of [Page 280] those references in churches under the heathen Emperours.

These episcopall courts were set up by the Emperours, to favour the clergy, that they might be judged in prima instantia by their own judges: for if either party had not stood to the sentence of that court, they might appeal to the secular court. The words of the 28. Canon of the councell of Chalcedon are very expresse: If a clerk hath a matter against a clerk, let him not leave his Bishop, and appeal to secular judgement, but let the cause first be judged by his own Bishop.

Now this episcopall court being in substance the same power with that of the elders men­tioned by Ambrose, which were first in syna­gogues, and then in Christian churches under the heathen Emperours, one may plainly see how weak and sandy the grounds are upon which ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, and the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, in the hands of church-officers is built; which govern­ment, say they, is the government of Christ, and is to be managed by those church-officers by a warrant from Christ the mediatour. For Con­stantine erecting an episcopall court, and em­powering the judges of the court to decide causes and controversies, did not intend to give them a commission of binding and loosing, or to put into their hands the keyes of Heaven, so dele­gating a power which was none of his to give; [Page 281] but only granted what was in his own power, namely, that some magistrates under him should set all things in order in the church, and among the clergy. Besides, he intended to set up that ma­gistracy, which was through the necessity of the times assumed first by synagogues, then by Chri­stian churches under persecution: for sure Con­stantine did not place the power of the keyes & of binding and loosing in the exercise of that power managed either by the elders, which Am­brose mentioneth, or by the episcopall court erected by himself. Neither Constantine nor any of his successours did ever conceive, that churches were to be governed by any other power then their own, as all other societies of men were.

In this episcopall court any cause between man and man, clergy-man or not, was decided; capitall only excepted. For matters of faith, I confesse there be many Emperours sanctions, forbidding secular courts to meddle with them: but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more then declarative, not sancitive. For

1. This very sanction, that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith, was a law of the Emperour, and the episcopall courts or synods could not challenge any power therein, but by a commission from the Empe­rour.

2. The Emperours did not conceive them­selves [Page 282] obliged to receive lawes concerning faith from the Bishops, or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperours dominions, except they were approved of and ratified by them.

3. The Emperours did not think themselves much obliged to receive lawes of doctrine and faith from the Bishops, in regard that most of the lawes and constitutio is concerning the funda­mentall points of faith were composed, reduced and inserted into the Code, without so much as taking counsell or advice of the Bishops; though we never read that they ever complained thereof. Only a late famous Lawyer and a Pa­pist, in his book de Iustinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof; which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiasticall power seated in the clergy.

4. And the power that the Emperours chal­lenged to belong solely to them, to call synods, to chuse members, to review their acts, to ap­prove, ratifie, disannull, or give them the vigour and strength of lawes obliging all churches and men to obedience, either active or passive, is an argument, that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperours did, in calling of synods, making lawes and decrees, and requiring from all churches and church-members obe­dience to them; the Emperours did not conceive otherwise of those acts of theirs, but as of acts [Page 283] of magistracy taken up by consent, for want of a Christian magistrate, and which was to last no longer then till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate. For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperours and the Bishops at that time, how came it that Con­stantine the Great, & the other Christian Empe­rours that came after him, did not rather wish the Bishops & clergy to call synods upon their own authority, as they were wont to do? and how came it that O [...]ius, Spiridion, & Paphnutius did not disswade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods, telling him that it was more then did belong to him, and speak in the language of Mr. Gillespie, that ministers by virtue of their office are to call and assemble synods; that it is altogether unreasonable that they should be abridged of what they had enjoyed for 300. years, and now loose a main branch of their ecclesiasticall power; that hitherto it was not so much as thought on, that magistracy, which is not a thing essentiall to the church, should so far entrench upon the government of Christ, wherewith the ministers are solely entrusted? But these notions came not into the minds either of the Emperours, or of Osius, Eustatius, Paph­nutius and others, nor of Hierom, who que­stioned the validity of a synod that was not con­vocated by the Emperour. These good men did not quarrell either at the convocation of synods, or at the making or giving of lawes to churches [Page 284] by the sole authority of the Emperours.

5. A further proof that neither the Emperours, nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces, conceived that Bishops and clergy-men had any judiciall power distinct from theirs, is, that for many 100. years in most parts of the Roman Empire, as it then was, Em­perours and Kings kept state-assemblies, where both clergy and laity sate and voted, without any such distinction of power ecclesiasticall and civil.

I should here shew, as I promised in the be­ginning of the chapter, that the very heathens never knew any such distinction of power: for although the law of nature and nations taught them, that there must be a sacred function distinct from others, yet they never knew nor understood that the jurisdiction of that function was distinct from that of the others: for many thousand years neither the people of God nor the heathens knew any such distinction. Ari­stotle in the third of his politicks ch. 10. speak­ing of heroick Kings, the Kings, saith he, were judges and moderators in all divine matters. So was the Roman Senat, both before and after it was governed by Emperours; for it was wont to consecrate Emperours; and the name of Pon­tifex Maximus, of which they were so jea­lous, was taken by the Emperours even till Gra­tians time. In short, they alwayes conceived that a common magistracy and soveraign power was [Page 285] made up of these two main ingredients, viz. ceremonies about religion and humane lawes, both put in trust with the soveraign magistrate.

One thing I cannot but observe: that the very heathens by the light of nature have gone here beyond Mr. Gillespie. For, to confirm a com­mon errour, that the church jurisdiction is whol­ly independent from the magistrate, and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporall life, having nothing to do with pro­moting the eternall good of the soul, to con­firm, I say, this errour, he teacheth us that ma­gistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediatour ex natura rei. But this errour is refuted by the very heathen, name­ly Aristotle, in his 3. book of Politicks ch. 16. where he saith, that the scope of politicks is not simply to live, but to live well. I should ask Mr. Gillespie, when a magistrate turneth from hea­thenism to Christianity, whether his first duty is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, both for himself and all that are under his charge.

There is also a notable passage of Pareus a­mong his Miscellanea Catechetica, artic. 11. aphoris. 18. where he lamenteth that heathens should surpasse Christians in this particular, in attributing more to the magistrate for ordering matters of religion, and that they in this point should be more orthodox: these be his words; Ac sane dolendum est, rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos, qui unanimi consensu [Page 286] regi suo demandarunt curam religion [...]s & cultus Deorum, idque persuasi tam jure natu­rae quam gentium.

As pregnant a proof, that the same persons a­mongst the heathens had the managing of reli­gious as well as civil affairs, is that of Cicero, in his Oration pro domo sua ad Pontifices: the words are these; Praeclare à majoribus nostris constitutum est, quod vos eosdem & religionibus Deorum immortalium & summae reipublicae praeesse voluerunt; ut amplissimi & clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo, religiosissimi religiones sapienter interpretando, rempubli­cam conservarent. It was excellently well or­dained by our ancestours, that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion, and the supreme government of state: that so, whilst the most noble and renowned citizens should see to the right ordering of the Common­wealth, and the most religious to the right in­terpreting of religious matters, the frame of the Commonwealth might be preserved and se­cured.

But I will not enter farther into this large sub­ject handled by others.

CHAPTER XXV.

THat ecclesiasticall power of deposing, excom­municating, and making lawes authorita­tively, as it is assumed by the Pope and the Ro­mish clergy, is not only more consonant to reason, and the literall sense of the Scripture, but also very agreeable with their corrupt prin­ciples in doctrine and practise: whereas quite contrary, the ecclesiasticall power with all its appurtenances as it is assumed and held by the presbyterians, is altogether dissonant from the holinesse of their life and doctrine, and is more repugnant to reason & the letter of the Scripture.

1. Neither the papists nor the presbyterians have any expresse place of Scripture for a double jurisdiction, except they both make use of that of St. Luc. 22. v. 38. alledged by Bonifacius the 8. behold, here are two swords.

2. Though the Popes speak big of their juris­diction as distinct from the magi [...]trates juris­diction, [Page 288] yet de facto they make of two but one, in that they subordinate the temporall jurisdicti­on to the spirituall, conceiving it altogether in­convenient to constitute two coordinate powers, since one must be supreme, and the supreme must include the inferiour; and that the end of the temporall being subordinate to the end of the spirituall, those that have the managing of the temporall jurisdiction must likewise be subordi­nate and subject to the spirituall jurisdiction. These are the arguments of Bonifacius and Bel­larmin; and upon these grounds all states and magistrates, being but ministers of God in mana­ging the temporall power, must be obedient to all acts and sentences of the spirituall jurisdi­ction, which the ministers of God in the Gospell are entrusted with: so that the magistrates power being subordinate to the ecclesiasticall, all ap­peals from civil judicatories must be valid, and so all sentences of excommunications of what persons soever. But the same ecclesiasticall power, as it is challenged by the presbyterians to be coordinate to the power of the magistrate, rendreth all acts of excommunication alto­gether unreasonable and unwarrantable.

For it is but reasonable that a man should sub­mit to a power that is either subordinate to ano­ther, or that hath no supreme or collateral: but it would trouble one to be sentenced by a power that is neither soveraign nor subordinate, as is the ecclesiasticall. Neither is it lesse unreasonable, [Page 289] that the same man, subject both to the ecclesia­sticall and the civil power, being condemned by one of the powers, cannot so much as seek for remedy in the court of that power that ought to give him defence and protection. The Pope well foresaw he could not depose a King, except the power of the King were subordinate to that of the Pope. But Zanchius and some others though they do not make the temporall power subordi­nate to the spirituall, yet they hold that Kings and magistrates are no lesse subject to the cen­sure of excommunication then the meanest member of a church.

3. The denosing of a King or other magi­strate is a result [...] flowing from excom­munication: for if by excommunication a man is made a member of Satan, whose addresse, conversation & company is to be avoided by all good men, it comes much to one pass either to depose him, or to put him into such a condition, in which he hath but the name of a King, which is done by excommunication. And therefore Emanuel Sa well expresseth the sense of the Romanists, and with it the true consequence of excommunication; which indeed, if there be such a thing, must be as he defines it, aphoris verbo excommunicationis: An excommunicated person is suspended from his office and benefice, and cannot judge, accuse or witnesse, §. 27. But that excommunication held by presbyte­rians, by which Kings excommunicated may [Page 290] still retain their authority and power as before, is altogether inconsistent with reason. Can a man delivered to Satan make lawes obliging for conscience sake? Can a soveraign put to shame and confusion, yea execration, by a sen­tence of excommunication, be trusted by his sub­jects? or can a subject excommunicated and rejected by such a solemn act, as unworthy to have any communion with Christians, be en­trusted by his soveraign with the managing of the great affairs of state, by which union & communion is maintained among all ranks of people?

4. Excommunication is very agreeable with the headship of the Pope under Christ in the government of the Catholick church; for he doth but expell a man out of the pale that bounds his jurisdiction. But a minister or a pres­bytery excommunicating either a King or any other man, cannot say that their excommunica­tion extendeth as far as the bounds of their juris­diction, since they have not yet defined how far it extendeth: surely, not so far as, and no further then the jurisdiction of the magistrate under which they live: for the ecclesiasticall and spiri­tuall jurisdiction is not limited by mens bounds; for it is like the place of the Angels; one may say they are here, but one cannot say that they are not there. If it reacheth all over the world, then a presbytery of Scotland may as well ex­communicate a man in Germany, as in Scot­land.

5. The Papists arguments, namely Bellar­min's and others, are very urging, that, suppo­sing there be but one true church and body of Christ, and that that church and body is the Rom [...]sh church, there cannot be a Common­wealth within another Commonwealth, and a jurisdiction within another jurisdiction, except one be subordinate to the other, and one depend on the other; therefore that either the spiritu­all power must depend on the temporall, or the temporall on the spirituall, for fear of a conti­nuall clashing and conflict. But our brethren not allowing the necessity of dependance of one jurisdiction on the other, do unavoidably run upon many rocks of inconveniences (which the papists prudently avoid) such as is an endlesse crossing and thwarting of contrary laws, com­mands and orders, one of the other, while men do not know which to obey first; as I have largely shewed in the 15. chapter of my Parae­nesis.

6. Besides, it doth very well stand to reason, (what the Romanists would have) that one body of a church should have one governour, and one government, which is that of Christ: but so doth it not, that the presbyterian govern­ment should be the government of Christ, and yet not be received by all the members of the church of Christ; as they cannot deny but that there are many churches, which yet do not hold presbytery to be the government of Christ.

7. It is very compauble, that in one govern­ment there should be many [...]anks and sorts of men contributing th [...]ir ca [...]e towards it; so that all these cares be not coordinate, but subordi­nate, and every rank of men take care in its proper place, and with subordination to some principall power, that must have the chief care of it. This the Papists as they hold, so they practise: for they make the magistrate but subservient to the care that the Pope is to take in governing the church, yielding to his judgement and com­mands, and executing his decrees and buls with­out controul. But the presbyterians, that are not yet agreed how to levell the duties of the mi­nisters and of the magistrate about taking care of the government of the church, have cast us into an endlesse unce [...]tainty, which of them is to have the greatest & [...]hiefest care. For where­as Rivetus saith, that the magistates chief and first care is the administration of sacred things and the government of the church, and his se­cond care the government of the Common­wealth; Walaus, Apollonius, Mr. Gillespie, and a hundred more will tell us, that that care doth mainly and first belong to ministers, and next to them that magistrates have an auxiliary ecclesiasticall power, by which they are to ayd the ministers in the government of the church. So that if each party conceiveth that the care of the church doth not belong chiefly to the other, but that he is to look to it as he thinks [Page 293] fitting, and not to trust the main care with any one but himself, I fear we shall need a third par­ty to take care that these two may care but for one thing.

8. Those words of Jesus Christ, I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and, whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. and, a­gainst that church (which they say is the Ro­mish church) the gates of Hell shall not prevail, seem literally to confer a very great power, yea to give an infallibility; the power of remitting and retaining sins, and of granting indul­gences, being not repugnant to the non-erring power. But the giving this great power of the keyes of Heaven, and of binding and loosing, expressed in very high and emphaticall terms, cannot be applyable to a presbyterian church, against which the gares of hell shall not pre­vail; nor can it stand with the little modulus of power of a presbytery, which yet hath found no legs to walk on; they not resolving us yet whe­ther the pastor, or the people, or both must ex­communicate, that the sentence of excommu­nication may be valid, nor how farre it reacheth.

9. Particularly, that saying of the Papists, that there cannot be a greater argument that their judgements are infallible then this, that God ratifieth them in Heaven, is much accord­ing to the literall arguing of the Scripture, say­ing, that whatsoever shall be bound, &c. that is, [Page 294] as they interpret it, whatsoever shall be decreed by them and passed on earth, shall afterwards be ratified and approved in Heaven. For were their judgements fallible, then God would not have tyed himself by his promise to approve of all the erroneous judgements of men, which they say cannot be said without blasphemy. But the fallibility of the judgements of presbyterian ju­dicatories is repugnant to the letter of the Scri­pture, which promiseth to ratify all the judge­ments that are passed by men on earth.

10. So for the power of the Pope in absolving and loosing men from their oaths and promises, and fidelity due to their soveraign, it doth very well agree with the letter of the Scripture, what­soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, for here is a power given without any modification. But that of presbyterian j [...]dicato­ry not challenging such a power, and yet grounding their power upon the same Scripture, must so much the more recede from the Scripture; and therefore they need a place of Scripture as pregnant for their power, as the Romanists have for theirs.

11. Lastly, the jurisdiction held by the Pa­pists is a true & valid jurisdiction, for it is coer­cive, and extendeth to the body, estate, liberty and good name; the Pope and Bishops have their prisons: but the presbyterian is a name without a thing; for they are loth to call it coercive; it must be then perswasive. I wish they would [Page 295] hold there, & suspend their excommunication of any person, till he be perswaded so to be, which I think he will never be: or till they can inform him, that excommunication is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, as well as the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacraments, as they tell us in the 63. page of their answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren; which neither do I think they ever will be able to doe.

12. But though the ecclesiasticall presbyte­rian power, as it is held to be independent, and not subordinate to the magistrate, is lesse conso­nant to Scripture and reason then the papall ec­clesiasticall power; yet I must say thus much for the brethren of the presbytery, that their excom­munication, as they hold it from a power coor­dinate and independent from the magistrate, is more consistent with reason, then that excommu­nication held by the learned and rever. Dr. Ham­mond, agreeth with his subordinating the eccle­siasticall episcopall power to the magistrate, as supreme governour of the church under Christ: for according to the Doctors opinion, one can­not conceive of the power of excommunicating, but as the power of the magistrate, and of ex­communication but as a law of the magistrate; which yet I believe he will not grant. For were he willing to grant thus much, then besides that he and I should not differ, he would get reason and Scripture more on his side, then [Page 296] [...]ur brethren of the presbytery or the Pa­p [...]s have.

Now that some remaining within the com­munion of Rome have acknowledged as much as we concerning the nullity of a double juris­diction, the power of the magistrate in sacred things, and the nature of the Kingdom of God, I could prove by many of them; truth breaking forth through the darknesse of popery, whereas Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie were blind in so clear day of revealed truth.

I have already al [...]edged Claude Fauchet & John du Tiller, who t [...]ll us that there was no such thing as a double jurisdiction for many hundred years after Christ: and with them a­greeth the authour of the Review of the Councill of Trent wh [...] the 6. book chap. 5. saith, that the [...] F [...]ance hold their jurisdiction not from the Pope, but from the King of France. We have also alledged Tos [...]atus upon the 16. of Nauhew, asserting that among the Jewes there was no distinction of jurisdiction.

Hotomannus, a famous Lawyer and a Papist, in his book of the Liberties, hath these words: It is certain that ecclesiasticks as ecclesiasticks have neither fisck nor territorie, nor any juris­diction, but only liberty to declare what is fit­ting to be observed, without receiving or exe­cut on of their opinion.

But I will insist only upon two or three con­siderable places out of the said Review of the [Page 297] Councill of Trent, that one would think had been spoken by Frastus or Mr. Coleman.

In the 3. book cap. 11. he hath these words: If the Prence be learned and capable, what rea­son [...]s there to exclude him from presidency? It were indeed more beseeming and becoming his dignity, to let the Bishops a [...]sp [...]te, yea one of them to manage and order the action, or such as he himself will chuse, res [...]ving to himself the presidency, yea the determination, the con­firmation and execution, after he hath viewed and understood all: the importance and conse­quence is too great, when it concerneth salva­tion, a Prince hath no lesse interest then a Prlest. Here we have a Paput granting, that the magistrate is not only to preside in synods, but also to have the last determination and judgement of all-debates.

In the 7. book ch. 6. he ascribeth a function, but no jurisdiction, to the clergy and pastors; and he hath this passage worthy to be written in golden letters, for it doth disannull and make void all consistoriall, classicall and synodicall canons, sentences and definitions, which are no acts of the magistrate. Kings ought not to meddle with the administration of the Sacra­ments, nor with the business of ceremonies, or preaching, or other ecclesiasticall ministeriall acts: but for appointing of the order of cere­monies, purging out of abuses, extirpation of schism and heresies, church-policy, and the like, [Page 298] they may, they ought, and they have alwayes done it, either by putting their own hands to the work, or by commanding of it, or else by appointing and constituting lawes, statutes and ordinances.

The authour did here only forget to tell us by what power the magistrate must do this. Is it by a politicall or ecclesiasticall power, direct or in­direct, intrinsecall or extrinsecall? None but Mr. Gillespie could tell us. Sure he that takes all and doeth all by his own power and autho­rity, needs no co-partners in the managing of his power, but delegates and substitutes in the exercise of it.

CHAPTER XXVI.

ALthough I made this subject the greatest part of my Latin book, yet I had much more to say then I did write, purposing one time or other to discover, that excommunication hath been the principall and main tool in the hands of the man of sin to build up the Roman Hierarchie, or that dominion which the Pope hath procured himself in all states and Empires round about him; which is the very mystery of iniquity spoken of by S. Paul: To avoid prolixity therefore, intending here sut an extract, I will strive to contract my self, & give but a breviary in few chapters of what I designe, if God gives me life, in another tongue.

I must first state what my opposites mean by excommunication, that by the description they make of it, I may with lesse difficulty make good, that it is repugnant to reason, Scripture, and the practise of all nations, heathens, Iewes, yea of many Christians in all ages; for except they give it me themselves, it is as impossible for me to delineate it, as to give the true definition of purgatory, or of limbus patrum; for all parties are not yet agreed what the exclusion is from and by whom, and what men are excommuni­cable. For some hold that excommunication, at least the lesse, is from the Eucharist, as the greater is from the assembly of Christians: others not only from the externall communion, but also from the internall. Some hold that only [Page 300] Bishops, yea that one only Bishop may excom­municate, as Ambrose did Theod [...]sius: some think that p [...]es [...]yters and ministers may do it; and of these, some say that one may do it, others say there must be three at least. Ca [...]vin and some others hold excommunication is v [...]d [...] except it be the act of a whose p [...]v [...]church. Many are of opinion tha [...] th [...] p [...]b, t [...]y without the con­currence of the people may excourmunicate. As for the subject or object o [...] [...]xcommunication, some think that Kings and ma [...]rates, as well as any other [...] ch [...]members, may [...]e ex [...]om­municated: othe [...]s e [...]e [...]t them Those that make three communions, according to the three seve­rall acceptions of Church in Scripture, say that excommunication is only an exclusion or a put­ting out of the communion which is amongst members of a [...] church: others that it is an [...]xclusion [...]t of the communion of the whole Catholick [...] [...]hu [...]ch; whereby they warrant th [...] power of the Pope in excomm [...]n cating Em­perours and Kings, who, since they are members of the Cath [...]k church, may be put out of the communion by the pallor within that commu­nion. But some hold, that the vertue of excom­munication [...]x [...]s no further th [...]n the jurisdi­ction of the ma [...]ate where the excommuni­cation is pronounced.

There being such diversity of opinions amongst our opposites about the true notion of excommu­nication, it is not possible for any of them to [Page 301] give a good account and description of excom­munication to satisfy all, much [...]sse can I do it: yet must I give some description of it, allowable, as I conceive, [...]y most of them.

It is a judiciall act or sentence of excluding scand [...]lous persons and offenders from some church-priviledges, by church-men or church­members invested with a power of jurisdiction distinct from the power of the magistrate; which sentence ought not to be reviowed or voided, but either by the same power that first gave the sentence, or by a superiour judicatory in ead [...]m serie (as they call it) of the same kind and nature, if any is to be had.

This description, I trow, will go near to be received by all the patrons of excommunication, even by those that make excommunication no lesse a saving ordinance then the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacra­ments; as the [...]ever. Divines have defined and determined in their assembly at Westminster. Now of this excommunication I [...]hall here give this short account.

1. That for four thousand years no such ex­communication was in use, either among the hea­thens or the Jewes.

2. That at that time when some think it had a beginning, even when the Jewes were carried into captivity, it did not be­gin.

3. That there is no ground for such an ex­communication [Page 302] communication nor practise in the new Testa­stament.

4. That soon after Christ and the Apostles time excommunication begun, and was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of ini­quity.

5. Excommunication being retained by the reformers, did occasionally strengthen the my­stery of iniquity.

For the first, it is easy to shew that there was no such excommunication among the heathens as we have described. It is true, that many learn­ed Grammarians and Lawyers, as Polydore Virgil, Tiraquellus, Fortatulus and some o­thers, hold that excommunication was in use a­mong the heathens before it was practised a­mong the Jewes: but it had nothing of the ex­communication agreed on by all parties. The example of Alcibiades, condemned for keeping holy conventicies in Cornelius Nepos, doth not concern excommunication, since it was a ju­diciall act of the people of Athens: neither was that an excommunication whereof Caesar speak­eth in his Commentaries, being a forinsecall sentence pronounced by the Druides, who were judges of the land, and medled with any such kind of matters as are usually judged at West­minster Hall in term time: for there was not then any division of power. Draco, saith De­mosthenes, amongst other penalties imposed, ranketh exclusion from courts, pleading, temples, [Page 303] and performing their idol-worship. Dionysius Halicarnasseus in the year from the building of Rome 254 saith, that the Senat made a decree to expiate all those that in the civil wars were ne­cessitated to shed blood. And Diodorus Siculus hath a notable example lib. 16. sect. 23. that though amongst all the nations in Greece there were variety of functions, yet there was an iden­tity of jurisdiction: for the Council of the Am­phicty ones did proceed against the violators and plunderers of Temples and Altars, & made lawes concerning their publick worship. Also Lampridius telleth us, that Alexander the Em­perour reviewed the sentences of the colledge of Augurs: also Tertullian in his Apologetick cap. 5. saith, that it was the prerogative of the senate to consecrate their Gods, and to order the religion that was to be observed among the people.

Let us now come to the Jewes; and first exa­mine what they have to shew for excommunica­tion before the law was given. Beza and others make excommunication as ancient as the crea­tion: they say, God did excommunicate Adam and Cain. Others would have those Angels who did not persist in their integrity to have been thrust out of Heaven by excommunication. But these acts being judiciall acts of God, not as Pastor of his church, but as loveraign judge, cannot serve the turn: besides that excommuni­cation supposeth a possibility of absolution, and [Page 304] returning to the former condition; and such could not the excommunication of the bad An­gels be, nor that of Adam, who was never to re­turn to Paradise.

Since the Law, they alledge for excommuni­cation, cerith or cutting off; which Mr. Ruther­furd confesseth was done by death or otherwise, and so can be no plea for excommunication: besides that it was inflicted by the magistrate, and was a corporall punishment, which con­cludeth nothing for presbyterian excommuni­cation.

Zanchius, in an Epistle to Frederick the III. Prince Palatine, saith, that Marie the sister of Moses was excommunicated being put out of the camp. But was the camp any more a part of the church then of the commonwealth? or why was this act of exculsion rather an ecclesiasticall act then a civil? And was this penalty inflicted upon Mary by the Priests and Levites sitting in a judicatory distinct from that of Moses?

No great stresse or strength is there for ex­communication in the judgement that befell Ko­rah, Dathan and Abiram: for this example rather teacheth us, that the nature of excom­munication stands not in an expelling or re­moving any one from us by a judiciall sentence, but rather in excommunicating and withdraw­ing our selves from the communion of the wick­ed: for so are the words Numbers 16. Separate your selves from among that congregation, and [Page 305] bid all the people to depart from the tents of these wicked men. Such excommunication I shall willingly grant, whereby we may avoid and reject hereticks and heresies; flee from the devil, but not put the devil to flight by excommu­nication. The best way to eschew the unfruitfull works and workers of darknesse, and to have no communion with them, is to withdraw from their communion.

They urge much legall uncleannesse, for which they say men were separated from the rest of the congregation. This, Mr. Rutherfurd saith p. 285. was a ceremoniall excommunication; thereby silently confessing that reall excommunication was not in use, till all the ceremonies were taken away. Suppose that the legall uncleannesse had been a type of the morall, it could not be a type of a thing then present, but of a future: but we have proved that the legall cleannesse was a type of Christs righteousnesse, & the legall unclean­nesse a type of those that being not clad with Christs righteousness, were separated from Christ and his elect, as the goats are from the sheep. A perfect righteousness, such as was the legall, cannot be a type of the morall righteousnesse, which is imperfect: and the want of legall clean­nesse doth very well prefigure the want of Christs righteousnesse, but it doth not so well shadow out the want of morall righteousnesse, which doth not as such separate men from Christ. Since then, as Mr. Rutherfurd confesseth, [Page 306] this separation of lepers and such as were pol­luted with legall uncleannesse was but a cere­moniall excommunication, I long to hear from him but one only example in all the old Testa­ment of a reall excommunication, which was typified by the ceremoniall excommunication, or that ever any man was kept from the passeo­ver or the sacrifices for a morall uncleannesse: which he will never be able to shew. Besides, this sequestring or separating of a leprous or legally unclean person was no judiciall act of the Priests and Levites, more then of the elders of the people; and so by that, excommunication should not be a sentence agreeing with the de­scription we have given of it, and which is agreed on by all sides that plead for excommu­nication.

It is observable, that not all the Levites, but only Aaron and his sons could judge of the leper, therein prefiguring Christ, who only knoweth his own, and discerneth his elect from others, and the sheep from the goats: so that this legall rite cannot be applyed to excommu­nication, which they say is a judiciall act that may be performed by every minister of the Gospell. And therefore the Papists have very good reason on their side, who being not wil­ling to loose their power of excommunicating, nor to forgo the usuall plea taken from the Priests judging of the leper, saw, that since only Aaron & his sons were invested with the power [Page 307] of judging the leper, it was therefore fitting that the power of excommunication, prefigured by that power of discerning leprosie, should belong only to the Bishops, who succeed the sons of Aa­ron, and are in the Christian church what the sons of Aaron were in the Jewish. Now I have shewed elsewhere, that Gospell-Prophets or mi­nisters did not succeed the Priests or Levites, but the Prophets of the old Testament, who had no­thing to do with judging of the leprosy: and that therefore the Priests judging of the leprosy apart from other men, is no plea either for excommu­nication or for ecclesiasticall jurisdiction: be­sides that the Priests did judge of the leprosy not so much by their office, as by the skill annexed to their office; and so they did but as physitians, who are best able to judge of the pestilence, yet are only to give their judgement, but not to sepa­rate any one from the rest of men by their juris­diction, no more then the Priests did.

CHAPTER XXVII.

SOme are of opinion that excommunicati­on had its beginning in Ezra's (chap. 7. v. 27.) and Nehemiahs times, Nehem. 10. v. 29. and ch. 13. v. 25. where Aben Ezra expoundeth I cursed them, of the two kinds of excommuni­cation, Niddui and Cherem: though others que­stion it, and say that these three kinds of ex­communication, Niddui, Cherem and Scha­ [...]natha, were not invented of two hundred years after. However it is certain, as some Rabbins observe, that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah something like excommunication begun; for the people being led captive, and wanting their wonted magistrate, and usuall legall proceed­ings, and having no power within themselves to keep up their religion without mixing with the heathen, or to restrain those that would run after Idols; the best-minded people, yea most of the nation who as yet had not consulted with themselves how far they were to persevere in the religion they were born and brought up in, did body themselves into severall syna­gogues, where they bound themselves mutually by a sacred oath (some say they broke bread upon it) to keep the law of Moses, and not to join themselves by marriages to the heathens, and to hold close to the customs and consti­tutions of their elders and ancestours, even of those that were the keepers of such a confede­rate discipline, and were to see all things per­formed [Page 309] according to oath or covenant, and to take order that whosoever did break it should suffer the penalty imposed by the discipline.

These synagogues supplyed the defect both of magistracy, and of all those godly meetings which were kept every sabbath-day in the hou­ses of Prophets: for in them not only the law of Moses was read and expounded, and prayers made; but also all those causes and matters which usually were handled and determined in higher and lower courts or Sanedrims, were ad­judged, so far as the Princes under whom they lived gave them liberty, and enlarged or short­ned their priviledges: for sometimes they were not permitted to put any man to death; some­times they were allowed, even out of Judea, to have their Ethnarcha or Prince of the people, who did not so much govern the countrey as the nation. Hence we are satisfied how the chief Priests came to give Paul power to lay hold on the Jewes living out of Judea, and bring them captive to Jerusalem, for they could not have given such a commission to apprehend a Gen­tile.

Amongst other penalties that the severall synagogues, dispersed in Judea, Aegypt, Greece, Pontus and Galatia, inflicted, casting out of the synagogue was one. The Rabbins say, for the Scripture is silent in it, that this casting out comprehended many degrees of excommunica­tion; so that when they were permitted to put [Page 310] to death, to be put in Cherem was thought as much as to dye. But what ever were the degrees or species of excommunication, and by what title so ever called and distinguished among the Jewes, it is certain that none of these censures inflicted by the synagogues, or by the keepers of their liberties, were of the nature of the excom­munication we have described in the precedent chapter. For

1. These synagogues were a mixt assembly of men, betwixt a corporation and a church, and had not within their body a jurisdiction of Priests and Levites distinct from the rest of the syna­gogue, for the high Priest was a long time the chief magistrate.

2. There being other censures inflicted besides casting out of the synagogue, (which they make excommunication) as stoning, burning, whip­ping, cutting of limmes, as learned Mr. Despagne tells us in his judicious piece of the Harmony of times; there is no reason at all to make one cen­sure more ecclesiasticall then any of the rest, as if casting out was a censure inflicted by church­men, and whipping and cutting of limmes were civil censures inflicted by others. Sure a magi­strate, by the same power that he causeth a cut­purse to be whipt, also banisheth a seditious man: so were all penalties in those synagogues acts of the same power and the same men, and equally using force upon the body; for as yet they knew no such distinction of powers and cen­sures, [Page 311] nor were the distinctions of ecclesiasticall and civil, spirituall and temporall, found out.

3. Those that were cast out of the synagogue, were alike restrained from church and from Commonwealth-priviledges; the church and the Commonwealth being not yet taken for two di­stinct bodies.

4. We do not read that those that were put out of the synagogue were kept off from the Temple, and from being partakers of the same mysteries that others not put out of the syna­gogue enjoyed: which sheweth that excommu­nication was not answerable to [...] or casting out of the synagogue; for those that in the synagogue had power to put one out of it, had not power to bar him either from killing the passeover in the temple, or from eating of it at his own home, or from being partaker of all other sacrifices and ceremonies in the Temple. Christ and his Apostles taught daily in the Temple, though excommunicated and put out of the Jewes synagogues.

5. Neither do we find to the contrary, but that a man put out of one synagogue might in the same town or countrey be entertained by another synagogue: for Gemara Babvionica saith, that he that was excommunicated in one town, was not thought excommunicated in an­other.

6. Many Rabbins say, that one private man [Page 312] used to excommunicate and absolve another: and hereupon some are ready to say, that Jesus Christ related to that Matth. 18. when he said, Let him be to thee, &c. as if he had said, Since he will not hearken to thy good advice, nor that of two or three, nor yet to the church, thy last re­fuge is to excommunicate him in thy private name, and as to thy self only, having nothing farther to do with him. And in that manner will they have the 40. men, who had conspired to kill Paul, to have excommunicated one an­other, in case any one had been slack in the en­terprise.

Now let us see what plea there is for excom­munication in the new Testament. We have shewed, that the Christians succeeding the Jewes, retained by the same confederation of discipline, under a magistrate no friend to them, the same power of magistracy as they, though not in that high measure of jurisdiction; because the Christians were alwayes more persecuted, and never had so large priviledges and liberties granted them as the Jewes had: but yet as little as they had, they could do that which every so­ciety, though never so much kept under and in awe, can, viz. expell any member of their so­ciety, without giving an account of what they do herein to the magistrate. And upon that ac­count might the Corinthians very well expell the incestuous person: which act should I hold to have been of the same nature with casting [Page 313] out of the synagogue, I see not how any of my opposites could alledge any thing to the con­trary.

But I believe the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles had no need to have recourse to that power of magistracy like that of the synagogues, assumed by confederation of discipline: For

1. In the first preaching of the Gospell there was lesse need of discipline, because the number of pastors was greater then of church-members; the great work of the ministery being laid upon every man, and women converted were to strive to convert others.

2. The Apostles and the disciples, as Timo­thy, Titus and others, who were looked upon as secundary Apostles, being conceived to be led by an infallible spirit, the people in all contro­versies arising needed not go far to be resol­ved, or take much time in discussing of them by overseers or elders set a part for that purpose.

3. The gift of miracles, striking a terrour, supplied the place of a discipline: therefore Bu­cer on the 16. of Matth. giveth us this reason, why no externall power and jurisdiction was used in the time of Christ, which serves also for the time of the Apostles: these be his words; No commonwealth can be governed without inflicting punishment upon the wicked. What was wanting to the church in externall power, the Lord Iesus did supply it by a miraculous [Page 314] and singular power, and by speciall weapons, and a sword, called [...] 1 Cor. 12. v. 10.

But that extraordinary way of striking ter­rour into new converts by the power of mira­cles ceasing, Christians being grown numerous, and confirmed in the knowledge of the Lord Je­sus, it was now convenient they should settle churches, which they did, following the exam­ple of the Jewes under a magistrate of a contra­ry religion: for indeed at first Christian assem­blies were but synagogues turned into churches; so that they needed not to look out for other manner of power and discipline then that which was exercised by the Jewish synagogues. Were it granted that excommunication is to be proved by those words Matth. 18. tell it unto the church, or by the example of the incestuous per­son put out of the church of Corinth, or by the eleventh chapter of the same Epistle; yet this act of exclusion could not be made good, not to be such an act of magistracy assumed by confede­rate discipline, as was the casting out of the synagogue.

Beza, in his preface to his book against Era­stus, alledgeth the opinion of Musculus and Bullinger to be the same with what we now speak of: that the first Christians wanting the power of magistracy to restrain them that walked disorderly and wickedly, assumed such a power of magistracy to themselves, and devised [Page 315] excommunication; and that if there had been a power of magistracy in Corinth to punish the incestuous person, there had then been no need either of excommunication, or of delivering the man to Satan. And so far we allow excommu­nication, as it is an act of magistracy assumed by a confederate discipline by the first Christians, in imitation of the Jewes, for want of a Chri­stian magistrate, and not upon any commission granted to the ministers of the Gospell indepen­dently from the magistrate, or grounded upon the power of the keyes & of binding & loosing: for it were a lesse matter to discard and keep off the magistrate from concurring in acts of exclusion, if for the placing it in the ministers the Scripture were not so grossely abused, and made to speak what it never intended, and that which hath as much strength for upholding the Romish hierarchie, as the presbyterian ecclesia­sticall jurisdiction.

Before therefore we come to speak how ex­communication, from a law of the confederate discipline, became to be the main engine to ad­vance the mystery of iniquity, we will examine all the places of the new Testament usually al­ledged by the advocates of the presbyterian ju­risdiction, to prove that excommunication is a law of Christ and a church-ordinance, as well as the preaching of the word and the admini­stration of the Sacraments, which are a like com­mitted to the ministers of the Gospell only.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THe first place is taken from the context in Matthew 18. v. 15, 16, 17, 18. a place clear enough, had it not been handled by men of pre­judiced judgements. I wil not loose so much paper & time, as Mr. Rutherfurd & Gillespie have done to make it difficult, nor throw so much dust in the eyes of the readers, nor repeat all I have said upon this subject in another book. I will chiefly restrain my self to Calvins authority, to evince that the whole context maketh nothing at all for such an excommunication, as is a judi­ciall act pronounced independently from the Christian magistrate by the ministers of the Gospell.

1. Calvin, in the fourth book of his institu­tions chap. 12. §. 3. and more expressely in an Epistle to the Neocomenses, saith, that the of­fence Matth. 18, 15. If thy brother, &c. ought to be understood of private offences, and known [Page 317] only to the party offending and offended. These be his words: We understand the words of Christ of concealed offences, as the words sound: therefore if thy brother hath trespassed against thee, and it be known to thy self only, and there be no witnesse, Christ commandeth that thou shouldst repair to him privately. And a little lower; here it is not meant that hidden sins should be brought to light, thereby to shame our brother. So that this offence not breaking forth into an open scandall, it is not like that the wronged party would have taken a way to put his brother to an open shame, or that the Lord Jesus Christ had wished him so to do: but rather to make first one or two privy to it, and then some more trusty secret friends, it may be a col­ledge of three, called a church amongst the Jewes, appointed to reconcile disterences be­tween brother and brother, which were like the Morum Censores, censors of manners; or it may be such as are mentioned 1 Cor. chap. 6. who were like the elders spoken of by Ambrose, which were not invested with any authority to constrain, censure or punish the offender: for the words in the 17. verse, let him be to thee, shew both that the offence was private, & that the offended party was not to take any other course, but only to have no further converse with him. For if he offender had been excom­municated by a publick judgement, he had been a publican and a heathen, not only to the of­fended [Page 318] party, but to all others. But Jesus Christ seemeth to a private offence and a private way of proceeding to give a private counsell, how the party wronged ought to behave himself to wards the offender.

Learned Mr. Lightfoot thinketh that in all the context there is nothing intended either of Jewish or Christian excommunication; that there was no judiciall sentence pronounced, nor constraint put upon the offending party, but only shame; and that not publick, but only within the walls of the synagogue or of the school. As if a man would not provide for his family, after a first and second admonition he was put to shame in the synagogue by these or like words, Such a one is cruell, and will not nourish his children.

2. This makes way to know both what power that church in the Text had, and what is meant by it. Calvin upon the place hath some remar­kable concessions much to our purpose. 1. That Jesus Christ alluded to the custom of the Jewes, and had respect to the form of discipline among them. 2. That the power of excommunication belonged to the elders of the people, who repre­sented the church. Which concessions are con­vincing arguments to prove, 1. that Iesus Christ by the word Church did not mean an assembly of men whose power was distinct from that of the magistrate; since no such thing as was cal­led Church, Kahal, Gnedah, in the old Testa­ment [Page 319] was ever taken for an assembly of church­men, invested with jurisdiction and distinct from those of the Commonwealth. 2. Since the elders of the Iewes were no more elders of the church then of the Commonwealth, and that they had the sole power of excommunicating, it followeth that the act of excommunicating was not more an act of church then of state: and therefore if Christ speaking of the Christian ex­communication, alluded and had a regard to the custome of the Iewes, that likewise their ex­communication must be like that of the Iewes, and be as well an act of magistracy as an act of the church. Which is confirmed by what he faith upon the 18. verse, speaking of the govern­ment of the church, where he makes two kinds of elders in the Christian church answerable to two kinds of elders in the Iewish church. Now as these were not invested with a power called ecclesiasticall distinct from the civil, so may we conclude of the elders in the Christian church. These be his words: Legitimam Ecclesiae gu­bernationem presbyteris injunctam fulsse, non tantum verbi ministris, sed qui ex plebe mo­rum censores illis adjunctierant.

But above all he is expresse upon the 17. verse, where he saith that the Lord Iesus Christ in mo­delling the churches discipline, sendeth them to the institution under the law: admonuit in ec­clesia sua tenendum esse ordinem qui pridem sub lege sancta institutus fuerat. If we all stand [Page 320] to Calvin, the quarrell is ended; and the church Matth. 18. will prove such a church as was in Moses, Ioshua, and Davids time: by which is never meant a congregation of Priests or church-elders distinct from the commonwealths elders.

So then we see, even according to Calvin, if Iesus Christ spoke in the context of a church Christian (as I do not believe he did) it must be a church of the same nature with the Iewish; in which excommunication being an act of magi­stracy, so must it also be in the Christian church. But I do not believe that in this whole context there is any thing meant either of the Iewes or Christians excommunication, or of such a church as our opposites would have to be understood by the word church, viz. an ecclesiasticall senat or presbytery; being certain that neither in the old nor in the new Testament the word church, in Greek or Hebrew, is taken in that sense. Is it likely that Iesus Christ would mention a church that was never recorded in all the old Testament, and whereof neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles speak?

Doubtlesse Christ speaketh here of such a church or assembly of men, who were, as Cal­vin saith, Morum Censores, censors of man­ners, much used among the Iewes and Romans; not invested with any judiciall power, but yet of such authority and gravity, that whoever did reject their wholesome advice and counsell, [Page 321] was as much discredited, as if he had suffered corporall punishment. It may be those censors of manners were rectors and teachers of schools; men who for their gravity and learning were highly esteemed among the people: and such a school some say Christ and his Apostles made up, much like those schools of the Prophets in use in Samuels time, in which the scholars or young Prophets did sit at the feet of the Rabbies, as Mary at the feet of Iesus, who for that was called Rabbi-However those words, if he neglect to hear the church, do argue that the church spoken of in this context was not invested with a power of censuring the offender, as Bilson and Sutliffe do judiciously conclude from the words. For thus speaketh Dr. Sutliffe in his 9. chapter de presbyterio; Christ speaketh of a church that had no power to constrain, and which one might despise without insurring pu­nishment: for if it had had power to constrain, in vain had he added, if he will not hear the church, for the church would have constrained him.

In short, these words, tell it unto the church, are made, like regula Lesbia, a nose of wax by Papists, Episcopall men and presbyterians: it is to them a wood, which if a thousand men go into, none will fail to shape himself a stick, a mallet, or a hammer. Bellarmin will tell us, that tell it unto the church signifieth, tell it unto the Romish church, or tell it the Pope. Mr. Gillespie [Page 322] will expound it, tell it unto the presbytery. Dr. Hammond, tell it to the Bishops, called by Chrysostome [...].

I will not urge much the words, let him be to thee an heat hen or a publican, which if they do not make void excommunication, I am sure they do not help it much; seeing that neither a publi­can nor a heathen were the object or subject of excommunication. I conceive that the true pataphrase of these words may be this, and that this was the meaning of the Lord Jesus: If the offender refusech all honest wayes to right thee, then prosecute him in the court of the magistrate, where heathens and publicans have their own judges: deal with thy brother as if he were (and as thou wouldst do with) an heathen or a publi­can: for since thou must now repute thy brother (as to thee) as an heathen or a publican, and since thou wouldst not scruple to implead an hea­then or a publican, so neither must thou scruple to sue thy brother. For sure neither Jesus Christ in this place, nor St. Paul in the 1 Cor. ch. 6. for­biddeth Saints to go to law against an heathen before an heathen magistrate. Since then an ir­reconcilable brother ought to be esteemed as an heathen, is it any whit against Christian cha­rity for the party offended to sue him before an heathen magistrate? This exposition is very na­turall, having nothing strained, but most like to be the sense of Jesus Christ.

As for the 18. verse, concerning binding and [Page 323] loosing, we have examined what strength can be in it for excommunication: not discussing whether it may not be as well applyed, as Chrysostome, Austin, Theophy lact thought, to every private man, as to the operation of the word in the mi­nistry; or whether this verse hath any coherence with the precedent discourse of Christ.

Neither will I enter into the controversy, whether Iudas was partaker of the Eucharist, for it is not much materiall to know it; all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or casting out, and that he did eat of the passeo­ver, which eating was equivalent to that of the Lords Supper.

Now, lest more heads of objection of this Hydra of excommunication should arise, if all should not be cut off, we must examine what strength the example of the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5. hath for excommunication. But this extract being already too much lengthened, and the drift of it all along being, to prove that the casting out of any member of a church, being the same with the putting out of the synagogue, is no act of ministry or of church members as such, but an act of magistracy, I need not to speak of it at all: besides that these 3. or 4. ob­servations will take off all hold for excommu­nication. 1. It is granted by Calvin, Beza, Walaeus, Apollonius, Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie, that St. Paul mentioneth but one cen­sure inflicted upon the incestuous person, viz. [Page 324] excommunication, and that the delivering of him to Satan was the casting him out of the con­gregation. 2. Now it being evident that this de­livering to Satan was no excommunication, but a judgement quite of another nature; it is like­wise equally evident that the putting away of the incestuous person, being the same with delivering him to Satan, was no excommu­nication. 3. This casting out of the ince­stuous person makes nothing for that excom­munication which is only a putting a man by from partaking of the Eucharist: for though examples may be brought out of the Scriptures, of men cast out or kept from the temple or syna­gogues, yet there is no one example, nor any reason for it, that a man admitted to enter either into the temple or the synagogue, should not be partaker of the same mystery or ordinances celebrated with the rest. 4. Calvin thinks that St. Paul by these words, put away the wicked from among you, did not point particularly at the incestuous person, but rather at the devil or the wicked one indefinitely, as the plotter and contriver of all evil, which St. Paul saith was put away from them by that delivery of the in­cestuous person to Satan. 5. Wendelinus in his common places of excommunication saith, that the putting away of the incestuous person from among the Cormthians, was not only an ex­clusion from godly converse, as praying, hear­ing and receiving the [...]ucharist with him; but [Page 325] also from civil commerce, in eating, trading and talking with him. Which exposition is the most naturall I know, and proveth that this put­ting away was no act of ecclesiasticall power distinct from the civil: for alwayes every court punisheth according to its kind: a court of Ex­chequer doth not summon men for causes that are of the cognizance of a court-Martiall; so neither should an ecclesiasticall court impose pe­nalties that are to be inflicted by a civil court, such as is the depriving of a man of civil liberty. 6. Learned Mr. Lightfoot saith, that all the power of the church of Corinth in delivering the incestuous person to Satan was, by the strength of Paul's spirit that went along with them; so that the people of Corinth acting by no power of their own, no church ought to do as that church then did, except they be sure of the assistance of the same spirit.

Next in order followeth the necessity of self-examination, 1 Cor. 11. made an argu­ment to prove that ministers must examine every communicant, and judge of mens worthinesse. For Beza, Walaeus, Mr. Rutherfurd and Mr. Gillespie thus argue: If it be the duty of eve­ry man to examine himself, much more is it the duty of a minister to examine him. Never was an argument more inconsequent, and lesse concludent, by which the Papists may as well prove auricular confession: If men must con­fesse their sins to God, much more must mini­sters [Page 326] require every man to confesse their sins to them. For (quite on the contrary) from this Text these or the like inferences should be drawn: If all men must examine themselves, much more ought ministers to examine them­selves: or this; If every church-member ought to examine himself, then ought the ministers to exhort them to that self-examination: or this; If every church-member ought to prepare him­self for the word and Sacraments, then ministers are not to prepare them otherwise, then by shewing them and giving them directions for their due preparation, leaving every one to do the work himself.

CHAPTER XXIX.

THere being no Scripture for excommunica­tion, in the next place we shall see that there is no reason for it. I do not deny but that a pri­vate church, as well as any other society, by vertue of a power of magistracy seated in them, may expell a member out of their society: but that this is done in obedience to a p [...]sitive com­mand of Christ, by a jurisdiction independent from the magistrate, and by warrant from those words, whatsoever ye shall bind on carth, &c. I [Page 327] conceive to be absurd, impertinent, & a yoke laid upon Christians necks which is none of Christs; as if whomsoever pastors do bind or excommu­nicate on earth, Christ also doth bind or ex­communicate in Heaven, and whomsoever they absolve or loose on earth, Christ also doth ab­solve and loose in Heaven.

1. Since the words Matth. 16. and 18. be the very same words, it is absurd to understand them in the 16. chapter absolutely, but in the 18. con­ditionally. Now they would have the words Matth. 16. whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. spo­ken to Peter, to be without condition and abso­lute, that God should approve of and ratify whatever opening, loosing and binding should ensue upon Peters preaching and converting of souls; for Calvin, Pareus, and most Divines will not have in that place any thing understood of church-censures, but only of the operation of the word by the preaching of Peter. But though it were granted that in the 18. chapter Christ spake of church censures by excommunication, what reason is there why they should not be understood as absolute and without condition in one chapter, as well as in the other? For in the 18. chapter they put a condition to the absolute words of Christ, saying that all that is bound on earth by excommunication is not alwaies ratified and approved of in Heaven: for were not, as they say, a modification put to the words of Christ, all the judgements and sentences [Page 328] on earth had need be infallible. It is true, that parallel places of Scripture may admit various senses, as it may be these very words of Christ; or that something more may be implyed in one place then in the other. But yet whether both places or either of them be meant of the opera­tion of the word, or of the miraculous power granted unto the Apostles, and particularly, as Mr. Lightfoot expoundeth them, of a power to dispense with the Christian church in something that was to be retained or quitted of the Mosai­call laws and rites; yet it must be acknow­ledged that both places are alike to be under­stood absolutely and without condition, that whatever should be bound or loosed by them on earth, should also infallibly be either bound or loosed in Heaven. For to understand one place absolutely, and the other conditionally, and clave non errante, when no errour can in­tervene, I conceive ought not to be admitted in Divinity. In short, either the words Matth. 16. absolutely spoken must be false, and admit some exception, (which cannot be said without blasphemy;) or the same words repeated in the 18. chapter must not be understood of excom­munication, nor of any church-censure.

2. Since it is evident that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing, are equivalent expressions, and those both equally committed to ministers; if by the keyes are not meant the power of excom­municating [Page 329] & absolving, neither can the power of binding and loosing mean excommunicati­on. For sure these keyes cannot be understood of an outward admission or exclusion, but only of the conversion of a sinner by the preaching of the word. But suppose that these keyes were also to admit into the visible church, yet they can not be employed to put out of the church; a key being an instrument either to let in or keep out, but not to expell those that are in.

3. Who can conceive that those words Matth. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. being uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ with such a prefatory asseveration, verily I say unto you, should not be true without a condition and an exception put to them, and yet that the same words Matth. 16. without such a preface should be perpetually & absolutely true? And who would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had pronounced in such an emphaticall way, vertily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. only to signify an externall admission or exclusion; in the doing of which acts, ministers may erre out of ignorance either of right or of fact, if not out of hatred, or too much indulgence and fa­vour?

4. Since they say that a man by excommuni­cation is delivered to Satan; what an unchari­table act do they commit against any one, be he never so wicked, by putting him into such a condition, as they know is worse then his [Page 330] former, when they are not sure whether occasio­nally it may better him; neither is it in their power to drive away Satan again from the man, as it was in St. Paul? Besides, no man would punish a child, a servant, or a malefactour, with a punish­ment that shall last to his lifes end, as to torture him till death, or to whip him as long as he li­veth, or put him in a prison that may prove per­petuall: for still the earthly father or judge re­serveth to himself the liberty to give over cor­recting when it pleaseth him. But those that de­liver a man to Satan by excommunication, do inflict a penalty which it is not in their power to take off again, being not able when they list to recover a man out of the Devils pawes.

5. Most school-men and Divines hold, that the sentence of excommunication is of a quite different nature from the lawes and sentences of men, which have the force and validity of law, be they never so unjust, and must be obeyed either actively or passively: for if no law were valid but that which is just and righteous, then should no law be obeyed by any but those that could see equity and justice in it. Which sheweth the nullity of excommunication: for whosoever doubts whether such an excommuni­cation was pronounced upon right grounds and good information, or whether excommunication in it self is lawfull, may well count the excom­munication null and of no weight: yea if the party excommunicated doth but say that he was [Page 331] wrongfully excommunicated, and clave erran­te, or that those that did it had no power so to do, he may disannull, as to himself, and so to all others, the excommunication. For as long as the knowledge of a valid excommunication is grounded upon matter of fact, which is known but to few, most men may still question that which they are not concerned to believe, and whereof they have no certain knowledge.

6. Some to avoid that inconvenience, that God should be made to ratify what the pastor acts in excommunicating, say, and it is the opi­nion of Beza, that excommunication is rather a declaration of what God hath already done in Heaven, then an act preceding Gods, in ap­proving or disapproving the ministers sentence. But one and the same inconvenience followeth thereupon, whether excommunication be taken for an act preceding the act of God, or subse­quent to it. For if excommunication be a decla­ration of what God hath already done, or de­creed to be done; it would follow, that all the acts of pastors in excommunicating were in­fallible: for if they were fallible, it were not possible to know when excommunication ought to be received for a valid act, untill the mind and counsell of God were revealed, and it were known to be agreeable with the censure of ex­communication. And therefore Wicliff thought all excommunications void and null, except he that excommunicateth were first informed that [Page 332] the party whom he was to excommunicate was excommunicated by God; and this was held one of his errours in the councill of Constance Art. 11.

7. Calvin in the 3. book of his Institutions chap. 4. § 14. saith, that excommunication is no farther valid, then as binding in heaven an­swereth to that on earth: for he hath no stronger argument to make void the Romish excommu­nication, then by retorting, that many among them are either bound or loosed on earth un­worthily, which notwithstanding are not bound or loosed in Heaven. If this exception against all Romish excommunication is good in Cal­vins mouth, why should it loose its strength in my mouth? for by the same argument I disan­null all excommunication, because all sentences of God in Heaven do not alwayes correspond to those that are pronounced upon earth.

8. The same Calvin upon Matth. 18. plead­ing for the nullity of Romish excommunication, useth this argument; that the power of the keyes and of binding & loosing belong only to those that have received the holy Ghost. Which in­deed overthroweth all kind of excommunica­tion: for if the validity of an outward act de­pendeth upon the inward grace, the validity of the act will be uncertain till dooms-day, to those that know not whether he that hath pronoun­ced the sentence of excommunication is en­dowed with the holy Ghost or no. Perkins [Page 333] goeth along with Calvin, upon the third of the Revelation, making all excommunication void which is not pronounced by one that hath the spirit: For, saith he, to the society only of the regenerate and faithfull is it said, What­soever ye shall bind, &c.

9. But were it so, that every pastor excom­municating had received the holy Ghost, yet the validity of all excommunication could not be thence inferred, since even a man endowed with the holy Ghost, except he hath re­ceived a spirit of divination, may be ill inform­ed, and erre ignorantly, ignorantia facti aut juris.

10. Those that by binding and loosing in Heaven understand only approving of the sen­tence past on earth, have no stronger plea for excommunication, except all sentences of ex­communication be the product of an infallible judgement: for God is so far from approving of an unjust sentence, that his will is that it should be disannulled.

11. But how can it consist with reason, that God at once should ratify, approve, and dislike a sentence pronounced on earth? for they will have him to ratify in Heaven an unjust sentence passed on earth, because, they say, his will is that the party should stand to the sentence though unjust, and not intrude to the Sacra­ment without he be legally absolved; and yet the while they say that God doth not ratify or [Page 334] approve of an unjust excommunication, because unjust; so that at once the same sentence will be valid and invalid: valid, because legally passed; yet invalid, because unjust.

12. Those that by binding and loosing under­stand pardoning and retaining sins, though they speak truth, making the place Matth. 18. v. 18. parallel to that of John 20. v. 22. whatsoever sins, &c. yet they say nothing for excommuni­cation, which is neither pardoning nor retaining of sins. It is not pardoning, for then excommu­nication must be counted a blessing: neither can it be retaining of sins; for since, as they say, the end of excommunication is, that the soul may be saved, retaining of sins, or rather of pardon, cannot be a means to that end.

13. Since excommunication is a putting out of the communion, I would fain know whi­ther that outing is from the communion of a pri­vate church, or from the communion of the ca­tholick visible church, or else from the communi­on of the Saints, which is spoken of in the Creed; for I know but of these three communions. If it be only a putting out of the communion of a private church, then a man excommunicated in one congregation or parish, is not excommuni­cated in the neighbour church. If it be a putting out of the catholick visible church, then a man excommunicated in London shall be likewise excommunicated in any part of the world. And if the vertue of excommunication extendeth all [Page 335] over the world (as indeed so it must be, since it reacheth to heaven) then any church or pastors of that communion whatsoever may excommu­nicate any one within that communion, and a presbytery in Scotland may excommunicate a man in Switzerland: and therefore it must not seem strange, that the Pope doth excommunicate Emperours and Kings, since they are of his com­munion.

14. Excommunication cannot be a putting out of the communion of Saints and of the in­visible church; of which none is outed but by his falling from grace.

15. Neither can excommunication be a put­ting out of a presbyterian church, nor out of such an hierarchie as was lately in England, which are but meer politick systems of many particu­lar societies, either under the magistrate of the land, or under a power of magistracy assumed by common consent, as is the body of the re­formed churches in France: for then such an ex­communication were rather like a banishment or deprivement of liberty, then a spirituall cen­sure, which are no more bounded and circum­scribed by the limits of the magistrate, then re­mission or retention of sins, or the vertue of baptisme, are.

16. Neither can it be proved that those words, whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. are to be under­stood of exclusion rather from the Eucharist then from the assembly, or from either; and that [Page 336] there is greater danger of corrupting good man­ners in receiving the Eucharist with a dissolute man, then in conversing with him: when as quite contrary, to eat with carnall and deboist persons is a more contagious commerce, then to partake of the Eucharist with them.

17. Neither can they infer out of that Text, whatsoever, &c. or any other, whether a church, a synod, a presbytery, whether one minister or two, may excommunicate. But if the power of ex­communicating be included within the power of the keyes, and of binding & loosing, which we have made good to belong only to the dispensers of the word, and not to church-mem­bers or to lay-elders; it will necessarily follow, that one single pastor, set over four or five thou­sand communicants, must have power to ex­communicate alone, without the assistance of o­ther ministers: for every single minister having received entirely the povver of the keyes, and of binding and loosing, must needs also have re­ceived ability to do vvhatsoever is included vvithin that povver.

18. It is to be noted, that Christ doth not speak of binding and loosing of men, but of things; for he doth not say, whomsoever, but whatsoever: and therefore our adversaries the Papists extend the povver of excommunication further then the presbyterians do, for they ex­communicate not only men, but any other living creatures, as Mice, vvhereof Thuanus hath a no­table example.

CHAPTER XXX.

I Should next shew that excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the my­stery of iniquity; but this I have handled at large in my Paraenesis. St. Paul saith, that in his time the mystery of iniquity began to work. Satan was then very busy to infuse bad principles, which first put forth themselves in the affe­ctation of primacy, and in the corruption of the doctrine of the Eucharist. The laity had no hand in it: for as Ministers have alwayes been the principall chanels to conveigh know­ledge and grace, when assisted by the spirit of God; so when God gave them over to the guidance of their own spirits, they have been still the only agents and instruments to bring in ty­ranny and heresy into the church. The cor­ruption then beginning at the head, & amongst the leaders of flocks, their main care hath been to set up themselves not only over the inheri­tance of the Lord, but also over their own fel­low-labourers and collegues: for the attaining of which, and to seem great in the eyes of all [Page 338] men, they turned the Eucharist into an idoll, and this into a sacrifice, hoping that these my­steries taking once Gods place, the pastors would be soon respected with a veneration beyond and above that which is due to magi­strates; having with the dignity of their functi­on, a speciall priviledge and power to distribute those mysteries, particularly the Eucharist, to such as they should count worthy; from whence came excommunication.

But before excommunication could come to be the standard of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, the cor­ruption of the Eucharist must precede: which was a work of many hundred years.

1. The Fathers, though they had no inten­tion of contributing to the working of the my­stery of iniquity, have occasionally given a rise to it: for either because they lived among the Jewes and heathens, or because they newly came from amongst those, who thought there could be no religion without sacrifices and altars, condescending to the capacity & weak­nesse both of Jewes and Gentils, they borrowed many rites and ceremonies from them, yea their very discipline; they called the Eucharist by the name of sacrifice, and gave the name of altar to the communion-table, to the bread, the name of the body of Jesus Christ, and to the wine, the name of his blood. All which made way for Transubstantiation; which hath taken [Page 339] so deep root, that the very reformers, amongst the rest Luther, thought it too great a leap to re­cede too far from Transubstantiation, but stuck in the mid-way, and kept to Consubstantiation: yea the best of ours, though they took away both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, and have allowed no reall presence of Christ but in the believer, yet, to the dislike of some of their brethren, they have retained the very out-side & phrases which clothed Transubstantiation, borrowed from the 6. chapter of St. John, of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood, and feeding on the substance of his body; which expressions Bullinger wholly disallow­eth, as he openly professeth in an Epistle to Be­za, and finds fault, that in a synod at Rochell, where Beza was president, in the year 1571. a canon was made, which condemned all such as would not grant that the faithfull in the Eucha­rist were fed with the substance of the body of Christ: all which we are beholden for to the Fathers. Tertullian lib. de oratione cap. 6. saith, that the body of Christ is in the bread. Am­brose upon the 17. of St. Luke, besides the bo­dy that suffered, saith that there is also a body whereof it is said, my flesh is meat indeed. The Fathers usually make three bodies of Christ; a body naturall, mysticall and Sacramentall: yea Justin Martyr and Hilary make a mysticall u­nion of the divinity of Christ with the bread in the Sacrament.

2. Next came the crying up of the vertue of the Eucharist, near upon to as great an height as that of baptisme. Thus St. Austin, the best of the Fathers, thought the Eucharist was need­full to children for their salvation: which when they had made more mysterious then ever the holy Ghost intended, they devised severall de­grees of penance; 1. of hearers or catechu­meni, 2. then of competents, 3. of penitents, and lastly of faithfull men and Christians; thus making themselves judges and arbiters of ranks and places that men ought to hold in the church: all which brought along with them excommu­nication, which from a law of confederate discipline, answerable to that practised among the Jewes, grew to such ripenesse as to passe for a law of Christ, for a spirituall sword, an arrow to be kept in the quiver of the church, and to be shot at the will and pleasure of the ministers. This is the weapon that hath proved so effectuall in the hands of the Pope, that with it and by it he hath built up his mystery of iniquity, and founded an empire within the empire of Empe­rours, Kings and States. By the same wea­pon the great church-judicatory in Scotland keepeth all inferiour judicatories and churches in awe and subjection: for were this taken a­way from them, or were the people well in­formed of the fond and panick dread they have of it, then they would upon more rationall grounds be subject to order and discipline.

But whatever height the power of excommu­nication arose to, it could never yet be had, but one of these two things ever attended the possession of it: for either the Pope had it by a power of magistracy of his own, by which he kept all magistrates in awe; or it was alwayes disputed and controlled by the magistrate of the place, where the Popes agents did endeavour to exercise their jurisdiction. This may be proved by the practise of all states within the communi­on of Rome, specially of France, where the Popes Bulls of excommunication have been often disannulled and evacuated by acts of Par­liament and inferiour judicatories, yea by sy­nods convocated by the King. I will produce but one example, which I have read in an old French Historie, of the life of Lewis the ninth, written by Ionville above 400. years agone, cap. 82. where when a Prelat did desire of the King the help of the secular power, for making his excommunications good, the King answered, that with all his heart he would do it; but that first [...]t was fit he should be acquainted with the validity of the excommunication. Which evin­ceth 1. that all excommunications are null, without a power of magistracy to put them in execution: 2. that in the darkest time of igno­rance and Popery, magistrates could disannull and make void the Popes censures, and that they did not conceive themselves obliged to hold his censures valid, with a blind judgement and [Page 342] obedience, but were to judge of them, and so ei­ther to confirm them or abrogate them; for so did the Emperours, (before the Popes grew up to their height) from Constantine the great to Ju­stinian, and did regulate, order, and disannull or make void excommunications.

CHAPTER XXXI.

THus the abuse of the doctrine of the Eucharist went hand in hand with the use of excom­munication, untill that in Luthers fuller refor­mation the first was reformed, the other not ta­ken away, but by some of the reformers retained upon the same grounds of Scripture that the Romish was; though not in that height, yet not with moderation, which in vain is lookt for in an action that in its very use and practise is al­together unlawfull, as excommunicat on is. But neverthelesse excommunication, a [...]ongst other practises of the Romish church, was also abro­gated by Luther, and all thoughts of it we [...]e quite cast off, as of a yoak and relick of Popery, for above 20. years after Luther first preached a­gainst [Page 343] the Pope: and it was near to miscar­rying at its first new birth: for in the year 1538. he having sounded the minds of his hearers, how it might be introduced, there was a great clamour and complaining amongst them, as if Luther had a mind to lay again upon their shoulders that yoak which they had shaken off from their necks. Some few years after, having again propounded, that his intent was not to put excommunication into the hands of the mi­nisters alone, but to make it an act of the juris­diction of the whole church, some seemed to consent to it; but most being against it, we do not read that either it was settled at all, or that it was done quietly in his life time.

We read indeed that Luther did commend it to other churches, and even at the conference or reconciliation that was made betwixt Luther, Bucer and Capito, he did much urge how ne­cessary the use of excommunication might be; and that Bucer declining to deliver his opinion concerning the same, lest he should crosse Lu­ther, and thereby retard the main work that they were met about, did only say, 1. that many cities, in lieu of excommunication, had strict lawes to punish those that were unruly and wicked: 2. that he professeth in the name of his collegues of the churches of Switzerland, that they did not intend to give the Eucharist to those whom they should know to be wicked, and to live in impenitency. Bucer in that did [Page 344] but deliver the sense and practise of the Helve­tian churches, who at their first reformation received excommunication no otherwise then as a law of the magistrate, and not either as an ecclesiasticall censure, or an exclusion from the Lords Supper. For so sayes Gualterus in his Homilies upon the 1 Cor. 5. The lawes of our city punish by excommunication those that are negligent in hearing of the word, or in coming to the Lords Supper, and those besides that by their wicked lives offend the church: such they expell from their tribes, lest they should keep company with others. Let other towns do what they please, since one discipline will not fit eve­ry place: we do not envy them their felicity, who receive any benefit by the use of their ex­communication, or rather exclusion from the Lords Supper. As in the first reformation at Zu­rich they had not a presbyterian excommunicati­on, so neither had they a presbytery or ecclesia­sticall senat, distinct in jurisdiction from that of the magistrate. For the same Gualterus, up­on the first Epistle to the Corinthians ch. 12. v. 28. speaking of governments, which he saith are those whereof St. Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 6. v. 12. hath these words; At this day there is no need of such governours, being under a magi­strate: let none therefore overturn the order instituted by God, and trample under their feet the authority of Princes and magistrates, by instituting a new senat, that assumeth power & empire over them.

But I must tarry a little longer in Germany, and see what the attempt of Luther for intro­ducing excommunication did produce after his death. Matthaeus Flaccius Illyricus did yet with more eagernesse endeavour to establish excom­munication, and for that was perpetually at discord with Melanchthon, who did not so much dislike the retaining of the Romish excommu­nication, as the introducing of a new one: for Melanchthon was such a lover of peace, that he would willingly have endured the Romish Bishops should have kept their jurisdiction still, so that they had parted with other abuses and practises.

I could make a volume if I should rehearse all the journeys and removes that Illyricus made from place to place, urging every where the ne­cessity of receiving excommunication: and for that very reason was he alwayes expell'd, ei­ther by the Prince or the magistrate of the place, who lookt upon Illyricus as a man aiming at setting himself up, under a specious pretence of setting up the government of Christ, and one who continually jingled the keyes not of Gods, but of his own Kingdom, which he endeavoured to set up wheresoever he set footing. At length, partly by his much clamouring (being a very eloquent and learned man) and the workings of his emissaries, partly for the respect that most men bore to the memory of Luther, who first went about the same business, there was a kind [Page 346] of excommunication received in many Lutheran churches, agreeable, as they thought, to the mind of Luther, as he propounded it to them, and as he speaketh in his comment upon Joel ch. 4. where he maketh two sorts of excommunicati­on; the one internall, when God excludeth men from the assembly of the faithfull; the other externall and politick, like an act of ma­gistracy placed in the whole body of the church, and not in the ministers: and from that excom­munication they do not forbid appeals; neither do they ground it upon the words of Christ, whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. as Chemnitius and Gerhardus, the best expositors of Luthers mind, tell us.

But excommunication had not the same en­tertainment in Switzerland, where Zwinglius begun the reformation, almost as soon as Luther did in high Germany. For Bullinger, in an E­pistle to Dathenus, relates, that in a conference that Zwinglius had with an Anabaptist in the year 1531. this was his opinion concerning excommunication; That because churches under a heathen magistrate had no coercive power to punish wickednesse, they in lieu of it took up excommunication: but once having a Christian magistrate, who punisheth and restraineth vices and enormities, the use of excommunication ceaseth. In the same Epistle Bullinger saith, a church may be true that wanteth this excom­munication: again, we maintain that there [Page 347] ought to be a discipline in the church; but it is enough if it be administred by the magistrate. Beza acknowledgeth that this was also the opi­nion of Musculus, as we have alledged before, when he saith that St. Paul would not have de­livered the incestuous person to Satan, if the ma­gistrate at that time had been a Christian, and a favourer of churches. Gualterus, as we have said but now, was of the same mind with his father in law Bullinger; for which Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are very angry.

So then excommunication, finding no good entertainment in Switzerland, is carried to Ge­neva by the great man Calvin, whom God per­mitted to be deceived in that particular, lest the reformed world should have taken him for in­fallible. There excommunication grew into a great tree, that spread its branches far & near, into France, England, Scotland, the Palatinat, and the low-Countreys: but before it could shoot out, it had many rubbs and oppositions. For some years before Calvin was settled in Ge­neva, the reformation had been happily begun by Farell and Viret, and yet no excommunica­tion was thought on or practised. At the first proposall he made of it, many of the town flock­ed to the Syndics and the other magistrates, as he confesseth in an Epistle to Myconius, be­seeching them not to part with the power and sword which God had committed to them, lest it should cause seditions: and indeed they proved [Page 348] true Prophets, as we shall see by and by. Beza in the life of Calvin, in the year 1 [...]41. relates what troubles and ado there was to bring it in, & that many alledged the examples of the neigh­bour-churches (meaning Zurich, Bern, &c.) among which excommunication was not in use: some saying that b [...]t the Popish tyranny was recalled. But all these difficulties (saith Beza) Calvin surmounted; yet he did not censure other churches as unchristian, that had not pro­ceeded so far, nor those pastors who did not conceive their flocks needed to be restrained by such a bit or bridle. And indeed Calvin himself, though very eager to bring in excommunicati­on, insomuch that sometimes he calls it the yoke of Christ, & the discipline of Christ, & professeth to be ready to endure either death or banishment, rather then to suffer that the towns senat should take upon them the right of excommunicating, as he saith in an Epistle to Viret; yet he cannot but speak very respectfully of his neighbour mi­nisters, who acknowledged no such necessity upon excommunication, as that it should be accounted amongst the ordinances of Christ. These be his words, in an Epistle to the pastors of Zurich, in the year 1553. All men are not of the same opinion concerning excommunication: neither am I ignorant that there be many godly and learned men, who think not excommunication necessary under Christian Princes. I should not care much to erre in that point of excom­munication [Page 349] with Bullinger and Musculus, up­on condition that I were as godly and learned as they.

But however the opinions of the neighbour churches and ministers about excommunication stood, Calvins great authority prevailed to set up excommunication. In an Epistle to a person not named, pag. 409. and 410. in folio, he de­clareth at large which way he went about it; and there he hath these words, which carry as much authority, as if his will had been a suffi­cient rule for Geneva, and so for other churches to be governed by: Volui, ut aequum est, spiri­tualem potestatem à civili judicio distingui; ita in usum rediit excommunicatio: It was my will that, as it is fitting, the spirituall power should be distinguished from the civil judge­ment; and so excommunication came again to be in use. But however his will was, he was never able to make good his ecclesiasticall or spirituall jurisdiction distinct and independent from that of the magistrate.

1. Because the same spirituall senat was made and constituted by the senat of the town, as Cal­vin acknowledgeth in an Epistle to Bullinger in the year 1553. and therefore it was subordi­nate to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate, not only in its first making, but also all the time after: just as when Constantine the great insti­tuted for a Episcopalia, Bishops courts, he looked upon them as depending on his jurisdiction, not [Page 350] only in their first constitution, but also in their duration, in the reviewing, and ratifying their lawes and sentences, or disannulling them.

2. It is true, Beza saith in the life of Calvin an. 1541. that at the first constitution of that ecclesiasticall senat and its lawes by the magi­strate and the people, there was a soveraign law made, that no sort of men, ministers, magistrates or people, should hereafter presume and at­tempt to disannull what therein was establish­ed by the law-makers of Geneva. This indeed would have been a very foolish & absurd law, like that of Clodius, whereof Cicero speaketh, that could not be repealed or abrogated either by the senat or people; for when ever the law is ab­rogated, that clause also that the law cannot be abrogated is likewise abrogated. Who would think that either the magistrate and people of Geneva should so enslave themselves, and tye their hands, as not to be able to repeal, review or reforme lawes formerly made by them; or that they should believe their lawes were com­posed and given by them with such an unerring judgement, that they needed no further recogni­tion?

3. This jurisdiction, called by Calvin eccle­siasticall, could not be exercised and managed without a coercive restraining power, or a power of magistracy, either seated in the ministers and consistory, or delegated from the magistrate. For among the lawes of discipline of Geneva this is [Page 351] one, If any one, in contempt of the ecclesiasti­call sentence or judgement, is so bold as to at­tempt to come to the Sacrament, let him be re­pelled and driven back by the minister. Here then there is a power of magistracy, or a coer­cive power assumed by the ministers, without which he confesseth that all ecclesiasticall cen­sures are null and of no effect. So in an Epistle to Viret an. 1547. speaking of a woman with­in the consistory who declined the presbyteriall court and judgement, and besides did tire them out with her too much prating, she (saith he) would have overwhelmed us with her thun­dering language, if she had not been put out by force. I ask here, by what power was this wo­man thrust out? was it ecclesiasticall and spiri­tuall, and a power of binding and loosing, or a civil coercive power? and of the two keyes they say they have, which of them was taken in hand, and by which end of the key was the woman driven out?

4. But the nullity of that spirituall jurisdicti­on is evidently demonstrated, by the perpetuall conflict and clashing, in Calvins time, betwixt the sentences and judgements of the consistory of Geneva and those of the magistrate, whereof I have given many examples out the life and E­pistles of Calvin. Among others of one Barto­lier, who being excommunicated by the consi­story, did appeal from that sentence to the ma­gistrate, who once did confirm the judgement [Page 352] of the consistory, and another time did evacuate and disannull it. Whereupon there being a great contest betwixt the magistrate and the consisto­ry, to whom the judgement and right of excom­municating did belong, Calvin with much ear­nestnesse obtained, that ere any thing were concluded, the opinion of four cities of the Switzers should be desired. Bullinger maketh mention only of one city, namely Zurich, in an Epistle of the Senat of Geneva to that of Zurich; wherein among other quere's this was one, Whether there is no other way to excommuni­cate a man, but by the consistory? In that E­pistle Bullinger, though very fearfull to offend Calvin, yet manifestly sheweth his dislike of the whole businesse, and exhorteth him to modera­tion and mildnesse. Whatever was the issue of the contest, we do not read that the magistrate of Geneva did ever repeal this decree of the court, that the last judgement about excommu­nication falls under the cognizance of the Senat of Geneva.

CHAPTER XXXII.

THe reformed churches of France took their pattern of discipline, and therewithall ex­communication, rather from Geneva then from the Protestant Cantons: for being to live under a cross magistrate, they could not exercise their discipline as a law commanded by the magi­strate, nor execute their censures of excommu­nication as acts of the magistrate: and there­fore the reformed churches of France have upon much better grounds retained excommunication, then the churches of Geneva, who living under a magistrate that was himself part of the church, were not necessitated to divide jurisdictions; since the same men who were members of churches, were also members of the city and magistracy: and since the discipline, yea ex­communication [Page 354] was a law of the magistrate, there was little need to divide powers and juris­dictions; which when they should have done all they could, must needs stream from the same spring-head. But in France they could not be so happy; and therefore since they could not have a jurisdiction immediatly derived from their [...]a­gistrate, it was requisite they should take up one [...]y mu [...]uall consent, and by a confederate disci­pline. For when the magistrate (as it was among the Jewes in their captivity) is no countenancer of the true religion, nor a keeper of the two ta­bles, nor a nursing father of the churches that live under him; they mus [...], if they can obtain his leave, be a magistrate and a law unto themselves, and set up a kind of magistracy by mutuall consent, not only in their private churches, but also in their consistories and synods, by which religion and piety may be asserted, and errours in lise and doctrine be restrained. So that when a pri­vate church excludeth a man either out of its communion, or assembly, this it doth by no o­ther power, then a magistrate, a town, a co [...]po­ration, or a hall should act by, in banishing or expelling a member of their own bo­dy.

I confesse few of the ministers in France will acknowledge that their discipline is taken up upon such grounds, but rather that it is accord­ing to the pattern in the mount, and the disci­pline of Christ; as if it were a spirituall censure, [Page 355] and a sword committed only to the ministers by a Scripture warrant, and from the power of the keyes, and of binding and loosing.

But I much wonder that wise men, having a good foundation upon which they may firmly ground their discipline, should rather chuse to build it upon the sand and upon the sea shore, where it may be soon washt away. What man, possessing an inheritance by a good title, would renounce that, and rather feign a false will and testament, and upon that ground his title, which proving invalid will put him by the inheritance he had a good title to? Yet this they do, who will acknowledge no discipline but from Christ, and will not put a man out of their assemblies but by a power derived to them from Christ. But it being proved to their faces, 1. that Jesus Christ never chalked out any form of disci­pline, but left it to the prudence and discretion of Christian magistrates, pastors and people, who in generall are commanded to see that all things be done orderly, 2. that excommunicati­on is no otherwise a law of Christ, then is the act of putting away a hurtfull member from any society; these two things, I say, being made out to them to be Scriptu e, reason and common sense, and yet they pers [...]sting to have no other grounds for their discipline, then those feigned ones, who seeth not that their discipline must be groundlesse, since they cast away that which might strongly support it? Thus they are like a [Page 356] man that cuts off his good leggs, and buyes him­self wooden crutches to walk upon.

This is that doctrine that my Paraenesis was so much blamed for by my countrey-men, yea nearest kindred, as if I went about to take away all discipline, and to bring in stead of it disorder and confusion; yea further, to lay the reformed churches open to the persecution of their adver­saries. But my conscience tells me, I never had any such designe; and my reason prompts me, that no such thing can be concluded from what I have written of that subject. For it is with the discipline of the reformed churches in France un­der their magistrate, as it was with that of the Jewes under the Babylonians, Persians and Ro­mans: for whereas before their captivity they had no distinction betwixt church and state, no other discipline then the law of the land, no ju­risdiction distinct from that of their magistrate; afterwards, when they lived under magistrates who were no friends to their lawes and religion, they were fain, as far as they were permitted, to set up a discipline by consent, which was in lieu of the magistrate, whereof one law was to be casting out of the synagogue, which we may call excommunication. So that their jurisdiction was no otherwise distinct from that of the magi­strate, then as the power of a son, in ordering his own affairs and religion contrary to the un­just commands of his father, is distinct from the paternall power. When a man cannot go to the [Page 357] charge of lead, he must thatch his house with straw; if he wants means to keep a servant, he must serve himself; and if he wants one to go­vern him, he must be his own governour: and yet that power whereby he governeth himself, and is master of his own actions, is not distinct from that which a governour was to have over him.

The very same thing the reformed churches in France may say, who make use of what ma­gistracy they can contrive and set up among themselves, in lieu of their own magistrate, who cares not for their religion. If they be perse­cuted, while they hold that their discipline is ta­ken up by consent, as the Jewes was under strange magistrates; I do not see how they will be lesse exposed to persecution, when ever they hold that their discipline is not of mans devi­sing, but of Christs own appointment. For the magistrate doth not give them the liberty [...] their discipline under any such notion, either as it is confederate and arbitrary, or punctually set down in Scripture: for either way he counteth their discipline to be but a departing from the true church, and their reformation to be a meer deformation. So that it matters not much as to their safety, what foundation they make their discipline to stand upon.

Sure, it is not like, that those that were the authors of the discipline of the reformed churches in France, did look upon it as a mo­dell [Page 358] left by Christ to his churches, but rather as a collection of rules well digested by humane wisedome and prudence, alterable according to time and place. For so much saith the last arti­cle of their discipline: These articles contained in this book concerning discipline, are not so de­termined and ratified amongst us, but that they may be altered as the emolument and bene­fit of the church shall require.

I hope, when all prejudice shall be laid a­sides no rationall man will deny my principles. I have alledged John Mestrezat, a very learned man, late minister at Paris, both in my Parae­nesis and in my Corollarie, in a letter of his writ­ten but a few weeks before he died; where his judgement is wholly consonant to my opinion, that all church-government is prudentiall, arbitrary, and taken up by consent, for neces­sity of order, and not for conscience. Besides, I have the testimony of a very reverend preacher in a famous church in Normandy, in a letter of his to me, wherein after he hath delivered his own judgement concerning the book, he addeth that of one of his fellow-ministers in that church, in these words: One of my collegues, who hath read your first book hath given this testimony of it, That he is much satisfied upon the reading of it; and that your opinion is so far from weak­ning our discipline, that on the contrary it doth rather streng then it, and places it upon its true and naturall bottom.

Geneva's excommunication had the greater in­fluence upon the minds of the Non-conformists and Puritans in England, for the respect they bare to Calvin, more then to the Hierarchy me­taphorphosed from Romish to English. For whatever were the thoughts of some Romish Episcopall Doctors, such as the English Hie­rarchy hath alwayes had, the practise of all Bishops courts witnesseth, that excommunica­tion was but a law of the Land, and of the opiscopall jurisdiction annexed to the Crown. Excommunication was not much feared, since Prince and subjects left off to be afraid of the Popes thunderbolts. Wicl [...]ff begun first to pluck off [...]ts vizard, and to condemne both the abuse and the use of excommunication: for the coun­cil of Constance recon'd up amongst his errours, this tenet, That it was a comfort to the faithfull church, that excommunication and suspen­sion, and such like lying and feigned censures, are not grounded on the law of Christ, but are craftily devised by Antichrist. But that it may appear that Wicliff held no other excommuni­cation then that which is made in the Court of Heaven, the 13. article objected to him as an errour clearly sheweth it; Whoever leaves off preaching or hearing the word of God, because of mans excommunication, they are excommu­nicated, and shall be so held in the day of judge­ment, for betrayers of Christ: and the 11. arti­cle. saith, that no man must excommunicate an­other, [Page 360] except he knows him to be excommuni­cated by God.

In short, whereas our brethren the Scots held that all jurisdiction of ecclesiasticall assemblies, synods and presbyteries, was derived from Je­sus Christ, the English people, at least the magi­strate, who would never permit the ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction to get up, held no jurisdiction but such as was derived from him: for even from King Edward the sixths time, the soveraign Princes have been very shie of Bishops keeping any courts or calling synods, but only in their name.

Our brethren the Scots had their excommu­nication from Geneva, as well as the reformed churches of France: only Andrew Melvin did mightily improve and heighten it. But they and the Geneva churches have this disadvantage, which those of France never had, that these have two pleas for their discipline and excommunica­tion: The one is the necessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent under a cross magistrate; by which plea they may justify all the acts of their jurisdiction: the other plea, if the first prove not strong enough, they have in common with all other reformed churches li­ving under an orthodox magistrate; and that plea is the discipline of Christ; which as it is a second string to the bow of the reformed churches of France, if the first should break, so it is the only string and hold that the Dutch, [Page 361] Scotish, and Geneva churches must hold by: so that if they cannot make good their jus Divi­num of discipline and excommunication, they have no plea at all for their jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, as the reformed churches of France have.

This book would swell too much, if I should make it good, as I have done in my Paraenesis and Corollarium, that they have outgone all the reformed in the task of building an empire within the empire of another, or in the endea­vour to settle a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, having while they strive to run furthest from Popery, gone so far about, that they have joined issue with Popery in that par­ticular.

I find three main causes why in Scotland, more then in any other nation where religion was reformed from popery, the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction hath highest lifted up its head.

The first is; it was not so much any humour or designe of the godly people, as opportunity that brought it in. For reformation taking its be­ginning there not at the head, but at the foot, and in opposition to a persecuting magistrate, it was not possible to settle the pure worship of God, without a government and jurisdiction assumed within the jurisdiction (and distinct from that) of the magistrate. They having had it some time under a Romish magistrate, con­ceived it was to continue in the like manner un­der [Page 362] a reformed magistrate; and so turned the ne­nessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent, as it was by the faithfull people of Iuda under a heathen magistrate, and by the re­formed churches of France under a Christian, into a necessity of Divine ordinance: which being much countenanced by the great ones of the land, who rescued the soveraign magistrate from the Popish party, and brought him up from his infancy in the reformed religion; the same men, who were assertors of the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction against the magistrate when he was no friend of theirs, had a fair opportunity to keep it still up, when the magistrate was their friend, and in their power and possession; who when he was grown up to years, found the ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction too deep rooted for him to ma­ster, and overbalancing the power that by right (as all other magistrates and Kings in the world) he was to have over all causes, matters and per­sons. So that from that time when King Iames (in his [...]per years) came to understand that he was a King, and no King, till he came to be King of great Britain, we read of nothing but clashings and conflicts betwixt church & court, Parliament and ecclesiasticall assembly: it being impossible that two coordinate jurisdictions, and of the same nature, could stand together a­mongst one and the same people in the same countrey.

Another cause is, that the members of Par­liament, [Page 363] specially the nobility and gentry, being also members of ecclesiasticall judicatories, and the ecclesiasticalls having over and above an addition of strength by all the ministers of the land, who were not members of Parliament, it could not otherwise fall out, but that the juris­diction assumed in churches, presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, should not only appear distinct from that of the magistrate, but also be raised to a greater height.

A third reason is, that the Kings of Scotland having never had that majesty, power, revenue and splendour that other Kings abroad had, and yet the land full of nobility and gentry, who had great jurisdictions, many vassals and re­tainers, the greatest part of which received no luster or increase of dignity or wealth from their Prince; these had reason, in emulation or opposition to that small number which the King favoured and protected, to join themselves with the Kirk party, there to find what the court could not afford them.

I have nothing to say concerning excommu­nication in the Low-countries, but that they have no better plea for it then the churches of Scotland or Geneva.

I should now close up the history of excom­munication, by relating how it sped in the Pala­tinate; where I think it was received the last of any reformed church, though that place was one of the first that was reformed from Popery. [Page 364] This may be seen in an Epistle of Zanchius to Conradus Hubertus in the year 1568. where he relates, that for many years there was an at­tempt made to bring in excommunication; which was withstood by many, not so much that they had a dislike of it, as that for some politick reasons it was not judged yet seaso­nable to stir further in it: however, by the mention that was made of it, the spirits of men have been much alienated one from another. Then he tells us of one George Withers an English-man, who being to dispute for his de­gree of Doctor under Boquinus, among other positions had one touching the necessity of in­troducing excommunication; which was oppo­sed with much eagernesse, so far that one of his opponents, being straitned for time, so that he could not alledge all that he had to say against excommunication, desired another day of dispu­ [...]ation: which being granted, Zanchius saith, that the disputation grew so hot, that one of the opponents, a Minister, protested openly against the falsity of the position, as contrary to the word of God. At which time Erastus, amongst others, wrote against excommunication. It is ob­servable, that Zanchius did but favour under­hand the advocates of excommunication; for he saith, for many honest reasons I would not in­termeddle, but keep silence.

By what I have related of the practise of ex­communication in severall churches and coun­treys, [Page 365] we may easily conceive and appre­hend

1. That excommunication, when retained upon the account of confederate discipline, and as answering to the casting out of the synagogue among the Jewes, may very well consist with the peace, safety and integrity both of life and doctrine, in the churches of France, or any o­ther, under a contrary magistrate.

2. That excommunication retained by churches under a contrary magistrate, upon the plea of jus Divinum for their discipline and excommu­nication, may be exercised with as little outward disturbance & dispute, as if they did retain it on­ly upon the account of confederate discipline: but such churches then will not only usurp a power which hath no warrant from Christ, but besides will enslave mens consciences, laying upon them a yoak which is none of Christs.

3. But that excommunication, upon what plea soever retained by those churches that live under an orthodox magistrate, is inconsistent both with the outward peace of the nation where they live, and the inward peace and satis­faction of mens minds.

4. That excommunication as it is retained by the reformed churches in France, or any o­ther, under a magistrate differing from them, and upon what plea soever exercised, either of con­federate discipline, or as had by Divine right, is not attended with those clashings, disputes [Page 366] and inconveniences, that it is subject unto a­mong those churches that live under an ortho­d [...]x magistrate, keeping with them the same uni­ty of faith: & that for these reasons. 1. A church-member excommunicated in France will hard­ly complain to the magistrate, for he would but slight his complaints, and make a mock of the man; and therefore the party excommunicated must needs sit still, and stand to the sentence a­gainst him: but a member of a church excommu­nicated in Geneva or Scotland, looking upon the magistrate as a friend to the religion he pro­fess [...]th, and a defendour and protectour of his own church-discipline, will be ready, if he can make his cause probably good and plausible, to sue and seek for redresse. Hence we see there were more appeals in Calvins time from the church-judicatory to that of the magistrate in the little territory of Geneva, then are in a whole age through all the churches of France. 2. Church-members under a contrary magistrate will be more united in affections and minds, and so will keep closer to the observation of the disci­pline. 3. Under a contrary magistrate members are usually such as believe what they outwardly professe, and not like those under an orthodox magistrate, where there is more of outward conformity to the religion of the state, which is no hinderance, but rather a furtherance to ho­nours and pr [...]ferments: and therefore where there is more evennesse, foundnesse, sincerity [Page 367] and zeal, there must be also a greater submission to the church-discipline, and lesse clashings ari­sing from the variety of dispositions in the mem­bers. 4. There is a great necessity of exercising a jurisdiction among the reformed churches in France, for the composing of such differences a­mong themselves as have relation to their do­ctrine and religion, which otherwise being o­pened to the popish magistrate, would but bring our religion into contempt and derision. But un­der a magistrate that is a friend to religion these differences may be, with as little fear of scan­dall and derision to the profession and doctrine, made up and reconciled by men of his own ap­pointment and chusing, as within a consisto­ry; and as well and better by the consistory, if delegated thereunto, and invested with authority from the magistrate, then any other way, so that there be but one jurisdiction. 5. As there was a great necessity of discipline among the Jewes living under an adverse magistrate, which should be in some sort distinct from their juris­diction; so was there lesse need either to have it divided from that of the magistrate when he was a countenancer of their religion, or to have any at all more then the law of the land. The like may be said of the Christian churches.

I will conclude this charter with two or three passages out of Andrew Rivet, my much ho­noured Uncle when he lived, and whose autho­rity is of great weight with all the Divines of this [Page 368] land, namely the presbyterian ministers, and which taken into consideration, will be found to deliver as much as ever I have asserted, though none yet hath inveighed against him as an Era­stian, and an enemy to order and discipline. They are all to be found in his exposition of the decalogue, tom. 1. about the 1373. page.

It cannot be denyed but that the principall duty in asserting and vindicating religion, yea in establishing it, pertained to the King of Iu­da; for when ever the Kings mind changed, there was alwayes a change in religion; which change, whether for good or bad, is alwayes at­tributed to the King, as his act and deed: nei­ther could ever the chief Priests procure a change for the better, or hinder a change for the worse.

The King, or another magistrate, as he doth not ordain, so he doth not depose formally, as I may so speak, or administratorily; yet he doth it of himself, not only by his counsell, command and authority, for he may command it, when there is just cause of deposing a minister, to those that have that power in the church, who in that case, and there being just cause for it, if they do not obey, and do what he comman­deth, are subject not only to wrath, but also to Gods judgement.

Ministers as ministers are subjects to the soveraign magistrate: why then should it not be lawfull to appeal from the judgement of sub­jects [Page 369] to the supreme magistrate? and why may it not be lawfull for the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects, to ratify them if they be good, and to abrogate them if they be bad?

There is a subjection of the magistrate to the ecclesiasticall senat; but not of jurisdiction, as under a command, but of direction and coun­sell.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

I Have through all this book, and in the first section of my Corollarium, proved, that I have digressed nothing in my Paraenesis from Scripture & reason, about the right of churches, and the magistrates power in matters of reli­gion; but my opinion is also confirmed by two kinds of authorities of learned and orthodox Di­vines.

The first kind of authorities is of those that, for the main, concur with me, or rather I with them: such are Zuinglius, Musculus, Bullinge­rus, Gualterus, Mestrezat, Mr. Jeremiah Bur­roughs, Mr. Lightfoot, &c.

The second kind is of those that, though in generall they profess to be for a church-govern­ment distinct from that of the magistrate, yet if one take notice of all the positions concerning that argument which each of them admit and grant, will be found jointly, though not every one of them considered a part, to say as much as I; just as the Protestants doctrine will be found in all (though not in each of) the Romish au­thors, overcome by the evidence of truth in the handling of some points controverted betwixt them and us: as Scotus confesseth that Transub­stantiation hath no ground in Scripture; Caje­tan denyeth the Popish indulgences; Bellarmin after he hath much heightned the merit of works, concludeth with a [...]utissimum est, and flieth to the righteousnesse of Christ appre­hended by faith, as the safest anchor to stay a staggering Christian; Jansenius is right in the doctrine of grace; all the rest in some positions or other hold with us. And of this kind are Bu­cer, Martyr, Jewell, Zanchius, Reynolds, Ca­mero, Rivet, and many more; who besides by yielding an inch, have given us a whole hand­full to believe, that what we have discoursed of the nature of power, lawes, judgement, the right of churches, and the magistrates power in mat­ters of religion, is both reason and Scripture. For whoever admits (as most of these authors do) that the judgements of Pastors in presbyteries & synods are subordinate to that of the soveraign [Page 371] Christian magistrate, and that appeals from church-judicatories to the magistrate are grounded upon Scripture, reason, and the pra­ctise of all nations, and besides saith, that the magistrate is the supreme governour and head of the church over all causes and persons; who­ever, I say, grants these to be truths, must needs overthrow ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and power of excommunication, except it be in sub­ordination to (and dependently on) the magi­strate.

But among all the reformed Divines who ap­pear in the throng of those that hold an ecclesia­sticall jurisdiction, and a government distinct from that of the magistrate, none hath deli­vered positions in print so near the language of Mr. Coleman, as Ludovicus Cappellus, pastor and Professor at Saumur, yet living, hath done; which passing currant for truth from the mouth of Cappellus, if they had fallen from Mr. Cole­man, would have been taken by our brethren the Scots for pernicious and dangerous tenets, and mere Erastianisme.

In the first part of his Theses Salmurienses, de potestate & regimine Ecclesiae thes. 12. he saith, that pastors have properly no other juris­diction, then that which subdueth the affections of the world and the flesh, when the spirit of Christ in the word restraineth the assaults of Sa­tan; that there is no other authority of govern­ing the church, then what is seated in Christ the [Page 372] head, when by the efficacy of his spirit he en­lighteneth the mind, and convinceth the con­science.

In his 40. thesis, he saith, that the constitu­tions of the church have authority no further, then as they agree with reason.

In his 41. and 42. he puts equall stresse of du­ty upon the magistrate in governing and order­ing the church & the commonwealth, as being keeper of one table as well as the other. These are his words in Latin: Porro, his de rebus di­spiciendi atque statuendi ita penes ecclesiam (hoc est, ecclesiasticos quos v [...]cant viros) est potestas, ut si magistratus pius & Christianus sit, fier [...]id non debeat non modo sine ejus consi­lio & conscientia, verum etiam sine ejus au­thoritate, qua ea quae videbuntur in hoc genere conducibilia confirmentur, vimque legis obti­neant. Is nempe est utriusque divinae legis Ta­bulae vindex atque custos, ad quem propterea pertinet, etiam pastores, si cessent, vel peccent in officium, movere, objurgare, &, ubi opus fuerit, castigare; denique prospicere atque providere, ut omnia, tum in ecclesia, tum in republica seu politia, recte & ordinate fiant, utque ordinis legitime constituti turbatores & violatores pro merito puniantur. This he seem­eth to speak after Pareus in his Miscellanea Catechetica art. 11. aphoris. 18. where he layeth upon the magistrate a greater duty in governing the church then the commonwealth, [Page 373] and more in keeping the first table then the se­cond. Hoc vero jus gubernandi ecclesias sacra Scriptura disertim magistratui attribuit: ut ei, quemadmodum tenetur procurare ut bonum ci­vile in foro & judiciis legitime administretur, ita non minor, imo longe major ejus cura esse de­beat, ut jus Divinum, bonum illud animarum, hoc est, vera religio & pietas, subditis suis in ecclesia & scholis, ad aeternam eorum salutem, proponatur, juxta legem & testimonium: idem docent exempla laudatissimorum regum, Da­vidis, &c. Sic Paulus affatur Christianos Romanos, Minister est Dei tuo bono: ubi intel­ligit omne bonum, tam civile & terrenum, quam ecclesiasticum seu spirituale; secus nam­que magistratus homini Christiano non plus commodaret quam infideli. Ac sane dolendum est, rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos, qui unanimi consensu regi suo demanda­runt, &c.

In his disputation de summo controversia­rum judice thes. 52. he saith, the power of the church and ministers in delivering their judge­ments about controversies is meerly declarative, having no authority further then their reasons are perswasive and convincing.

In his theses de diversis ministrorum evan­gel. gradibus & ordinibus thes. 2. he allow­eth ministers a function, but no jurisdiction, and urgeth 2 Cor. 1. v. 24. not that we have dominion over your faith, &c. and 1 Cor. 3. [Page 374] v. 9. we are labourers together with God.

In his 2. thesis he saith, that Jesus Christ Matth. 20. v. 28. takes off all jurisdiction from the ministery.

In his third thesis he saith, that the power of excommunication does no more argue a jurisdi­diction over the flock, then prescribing a diet to a patient argueth the physitians power, jurisdi­ction, command and dominion over the patient; making the jurisdiction in both alike in these respects. 1. As a physitian may suspend his own act in administring physick; so the minister in giving the Eucharist. 2. As a physitian inflict­eth no censure upon the patient for refusing to take his physick, only warneth him of the haz­za [...]d he runs, upon the neglect of taking it; so doth the minister: he that receiveth not and obeyeth not the commandement of God deli­vered by the minister, cannot be punished for his neglect of the tender of grace, any more then a sick man for refesing to take physick.

In his disputation de clericorum immunitate & privilegiis thesis 10. he saith, that Princes have power to inflict punishment upon trans­gressors of the lawes that concern the worship of God, the administration of the Sacraments, and the doctrine of faith; and besides, that these lawes have no force except they be confirmed and ratified by them.

In his 12. thesis he saith, that the lawes about faith, the Sacraments, divine worship, discipline, [Page 375] and ecclesiasticall order, cannot be defined or decreed in a synod, nor any controversies there­in decided, without the knowledge and consent of the magistrate, if he be godly and Christian, as being the keeper of both tables; who ought to confirm and ratify the lawes agreed on, if they be just, else to amend and correct them, seeing he is the servant of God both for the spirituall and temporall good. The Latin is much more pregnant: Sane aequum & juilum est, leges & canones de fide, Sacramentis, disciplina & [...] tota ecclesiastica, primum constitui, deque illis deliberari à viris ecclesiasticis legi­time in concilio & synodo congregatis, litesque & controversias de illis ortas in foro ecclesiae, hoc est synodis, agitari & definiri; at non ta­men sine cognitione, conscientia & consensu Principis & magistratus politici, si pius & Christianus est, (est enim ille custos utriusque legis divinae tabula:) à quo, si bene constitutae sunt leges, & lites definitae, confirmari, & ipsius authoritate sanc [...]ri debent, & ratae ha­beri; si minus, corrigi ab eo & emendari eas oportet, siquidem servus est Dei in subditorum suorum bonum tum temporale tum spirituale, cujus curam & procurationem pro sibi à Deo, demandato munere debet suscipere, ac Deo de illa cura rationem reddere. De clericis lib. 1. cap. 28. propos. 1.

In his 13. thes. he confirmeth the same by the example of the commonwealth of Israel, when [Page 376] the Kings, even against the will of the Priests, did set up and order the true worship of God. But in his 14. thes. he would not have this so to be taken, as if the faithfull were to receive de­crees and orders, because decreed or ordered by the councill or magistrate, in case they be not agreeable with the word; but only that nothing can be decreed, bearing the name and force of law, obliging and requiring externall obedience, without the consent and the sanction of the magistrate.

I might adde a third sort of authorities, of some in England, France, Scotland and the Low-Countreys, who not only differ little or nothing from me, but also give their approbati­on to what I have lately put forth on the sub­ject I am writing of: which may be more won­dred at in the F [...]ench, who are i [...]ured to a disci­pline of their own modelling, and exercise a power uncontrolled by the magistrate, who in­stead of inspection, giveth only a toleration. Yet some of these later have given me a large testi­mony, to have delivered nothing but truth; and acknowledged themselves to be now convinced (which they were not before) that excommuni­cation is meerly of mans devising, and not an ordinance of Christ.

I could name many, but that some of them are like Joseph of Arimathea, acknowledging fully that truth which we maintain, but secretly, for fear of their fellow-ministers, that are so strong­ly [Page 377] possessed with prejudice against it. Others being like those that have told a tale so long, that at length they believe either that it is truth, or at least that there is some truth in it: for ha­ving, since Calvins time, every communion-day pronounced this clause in their Liturgy, I ex­communicate such and such sinners in the name and authority of Christ; they are rather prone to believe there is some truth and ground for this commination, then to search too far in­to it: besides, their collegues strongly believing that excommunication is an ordinance of Christ, if they should never so little question it, they might be in danger of suspension from their of­fices and benefices.

But all (God be thanked) are not afraid to countenance this truth; as will appear by the judgement which the rever. Ministers of Diepe in France have given of my Paraenesis and Co­rollarium, here annexed, as related by one of them, whose gravity, piety and learning is so eminent, that he not only deserves to be believed when he speaketh in the name of himself and his brethren; but also were it his own single testimony, it might wel over-balance hundreds of those that dissent from him, but have not pene­trated to the bottom of the controversy, as he hath done.

The Gentleman being unknown to me, but by report, I sent him my Paraenesis, and desired him not to spare me, in delivering his censure [Page 378] and judgement freely both of the book and ar­gument, and to do me rather justice, then shew me favour. He some weeks after returned me this answer, in this excellent well-penned letter in Latin.

The Gentleman speaking more in commen­dation of my book then I deserve, modesty makes me forbear to English it: only I think it not amisse to English here the judgement he gave of the same to a friend of his in London, to whom he wrote with mo [...]e confidence and freedom.

About one month after, when I sent him my Corollarium, I gave this answer to his former letter in the same language, as followeth.

Soon after I had this answer in French.

Having since the receit of this letter desired him to gi e me leave to publish it in print, he granted it me by this ensuing letter.

Among the persons living that have given their approbation to my Paraenesis, I might mention the late reverend and learned minister of Paris, Iohn Mestrezat, because he was then living when it came forth. I have in my Corol­larium inserted his letter written a few weeks before he died; wherein, as in his treatise of the Church, one may see he wholly concurreth with me in the following particulars.

1. That all private churches are independent from any church-judicatory, and that what power so ever is given, or promise made to a church, ought not to be ascribed to the catho­lick, nationall or presbyter [...]all church, but to the private church, made up of Pastor and flock, meeting in one place about the same ordi­nances.

2. That combinations of private churches are of very good use, but yet are arbitrary, and of humane institution, and not commanded in the word.

3. That Jesus Christ never appointed any form or modell of church discipline; only hath in generall commanded that all things in the church should be done orderly.

I might adde the testimonies of many En­glish Divines, who have approved of the book and argument, with no lesse good liking then the ministers of D [...]epe, or Mr. Mestrezat. For I do not doubt but that reverend and learned Mr. Baxter (as it seems to me in the Preface to a [Page 392] late book of his) will come as near me in the main question handled in my Paraenesis, as I differ from him in the other controversy betwixt him and me. But I forbear to name either those that like of my Paranesis or those that dislike i [...]; having no leave from either of them so to do I am however thus far satisfied, that these later have condemned it before they read it, and when they never intended to read it, either out of contempt o [...] prejudice: whereas the other have taken the pains to read it over, and been as m ch in the extreams to commend it, as those to discommend it. Should I set down here the va­ [...]io [...]s j [...]dg ments of men, both in England and b yond the seas, it would hardly be believed, that godly and learned men, agreeing in the same holy doctrine of faith, and in fervent charity one with the other, should be so opposite and contrary in their judgement of my book: some condemning it as most pernicious and dange­rous, adam i [...]ga [...]d damnable book; as if they had spoken of some pieces of Socinus or C [...]ellius, or of [...]n [...]ther and eternall Gos [...]ell, written some [...]ndred years a gone by the Friars; besides, a book full of hes casummes and slaun­ders, and wounding the interest of Jesus Christ: on the contrary others commending the book, both for the matter, and the way of handling it, and for the Christian moderation that the au­thor o [...]serveth enrough the whole work, equal­ly res [...]ecting and honouring those he assents to, [Page 393] and those he dissents from. The later, since they have known me by my works, have had more Christian converse with me by letters and other­wise: but the other, except they be my noble and old friends, did flee from me since as from an heathen and a publican, and an excommuni­cated person, only for denying excommunica­tion to be an ordinance of Christ; yea so far, that a reverend person protested to a friend of mine, that he would not come in the company where I should be. I thank God, I cannot find in my heart to value and honour any one more or lesse, for loving me either better or worse for my books sake, so that I find godli­nesse and sincerity shine in them, though in some with much prejudice. I pardon them their uncharitable and somewhat rash censure both of the work and the Authour.

The Lord knoweth my heart, that in deli­vering what I did, and now do in this present work, I look upon Father, Brother, Kinsmen, English, French, Scots, Dutch, Calvin, Inde­pendents, Presbyterians, Erastians, with an in­different and unpartiall eye; not seeking to close with any of them, or fearing to dissent from them, nor so much as taking notice whe­ther I please any body or no body; so that I may abstain from known errour and sin, and deliver that which to me is truth, and tending to the honour of the ministery; to the rooting out of the churches of God all power that is [Page 394] none of Christs; to the unsettling the Romish Hierarchy, which hath now no longer any plau­sible plea from Scripture and reason, for their setting up an empire within the dominions of others; and lastly, conducing to the building up of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in many mens hearts, and making it appear to be wholly in­ternall and s [...]rituall, and only over those that are convinced and perswaded by the spirit of God in the ministery of the word.

The Lord perswade his people of this truth, as I my self (and I hope rightly) am perswaded and informed, undeceiving them, that he may have all the glory, by their endeavouring with one accord to preserve saving truths by this truth.